UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

TOM MENSER, as Parent and Natural
Guardian for Eric Menser, Age
Fourteen (14), A Minor,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
                                                               No. 96-2049
v.

WAL-MART STORES, INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.
Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CA-94-320-3-0)

Submitted: November 21, 1996

Decided: December 6, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Tom Menser, Appellant Pro Se. John Edward Cuttino, TURNER,
PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant initiated this civil suit after his minor son was detained
in Appellee's store on suspicion of shoplifting and asserted the fol-
lowing claims: false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery, negligence, and
libel and slander. At the close of all the evidence, the district court
granted the Appellee's motion for a directed verdict on Appellant's
claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and
slander. Appellant voluntarily withdrew his libel claim. The jury
returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Appellee on the remain-
ing claims. On appeal, Appellant challenges both the directed verdict
and the jury's verdict. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

We review de novo the grant of a motion for a directed verdict.
Gairola v. Virginia Dep't of Gen. Servs., 

, 1285 (4th
Cir. 1985). In construing a motion for a directed verdict, the district
court must evaluate the evidence in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party. Garraghty v. Jordan, 

, 1302 (4th
Cir. 1987). The district court must direct a verdict if, without weigh-
ing the evidence or considering the credibility of the witnesses, it
finds that a reasonable jury could reach but one conclusion or that a
verdict in favor of the non-moving party would necessarily be based
upon speculation and conjecture. Gairola, 753 F.2d at 1285; Ford
Motor Co. v. McDavid, 

, 266 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 

 (1958).

Our review of the record reveals that the evidence presented at trial
failed to satisfy the elements required of actionable claims of inten-
tional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, or slander. There-
fore, these claims were properly withdrawn from the jury.

On Appellant's remaining claims, the parties' versions of the
events precipitating this action were contradictory; we will not review

                     2
the jury's determination of the witnesses' credibility, nor will we
weigh the evidence anew. United States v. Saunders, 

, 60
(4th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's entry of
judgment for Appellee. 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

                    3