Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Melvin Mayweather v. Lethell Davis, 02-2436 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 02-2436 Visitors: 18
Filed: Feb. 24, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 02-2436 _ Melvin Mayweather, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. Lethell Davis, CO-1, Correctional * Security Officer, Benton Unit * [UNPUBLISHED] (originally sued as L. Davis), * * Appellant. * _ Submitted: February 19, 2003 Filed: February 24, 2003 _ Before BYE, FAGG, and RILEY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Arkansas Department of Correction officer Lethell Davis
More
                     United States Court of Appeals
                           FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 02-2436
                                   ___________

Melvin Mayweather,                     *
                                       *
             Appellee,                 *
                                       * Appeal from the United States
       v.                              * District Court for the Eastern
                                       * District of Arkansas.
Lethell Davis, CO-1, Correctional      *
Security Officer, Benton Unit          *      [UNPUBLISHED]
(originally sued as L. Davis),         *
                                       *
             Appellant.                *
                                  ___________

                          Submitted: February 19, 2003
                              Filed: February 24, 2003
                                   ___________

Before BYE, FAGG, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
                             ___________

PER CURIAM.

      Arkansas Department of Correction officer Lethell Davis appeals an adverse
jury verdict in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought against him, as well as the district
court’s1 denial of his motion for judgment as a matter of law or for remittitur of the
damages award. Upon de novo review, see Kinserlow v. CMI Corp., 
217 F.3d 1021
,
1025 (8th Cir. 2000), we conclude the district court did not err in denying Davis


      1
       The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Arkansas.
judgment as a matter of law. We also conclude the court did not abuse its discretion
in denying Davis remittitur, as the award was not conscience-shocking or unjust. See
Duty v. Norton-Alcoa Proppants, 
293 F.3d 481
, 496 (8th Cir. 2002).

      Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See 8th Cir.
R. 47B.

      A true copy.

             Attest:

                     CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.




                                          -2-

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer