Filed: Apr. 16, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2962 EDWARD FRANCIS, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID N. COOK, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-2490-3-17BD) Submitted: March 29, 1996 Decided: April 16, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2962 EDWARD FRANCIS, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID N. COOK, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-2490-3-17BD) Submitted: March 29, 1996 Decided: April 16, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2962
EDWARD FRANCIS, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DAVID N. COOK,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-94-2490-3-17BD)
Submitted: March 29, 1996 Decided: April 16, 1996
Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward Francis, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. John Robert Murphy, SWEENY,
WINGATE, MURPHY & BARROW, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Edward Francis, Sr., appeals from a jury verdict in his favor,
seeking a new trial in the hopes of winning increased damages. In
support of his appeal, he presents thirteen allegations of error
committed by the district court. These errors involve evidentiary
rulings and denials of continuances. Our review of the record re-
veals that Appellant has failed to establish that the district
court abused its discretion regarding any of these rulings or made
any other error entitling him to relief. See Superior Form Build-
ers, Inc. v. Dan Chase Taxidermy Supply Co.,
74 F.3d 488, 495 (4th
Cir. 1996); United States v. Bakker,
925 F.2d 728, 735 (4th Cir.
1991) (providing standards). Accordingly, we affirm the district
court's judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2