Case ID: f-appx_81/html/0782-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Reginald O. MOORE, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. William J. GUIDICE, Defendant—Appellant, and United International Investigative Services, Incorporated, Defendant.
    No. 03-1135.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 3, 2003.
    Decided Nov. 25, 2003.
    
      Robert E. Deso, Deso, Thomas, Buckley & Stien, P.C., Washington, DC, for Appellant.
    Elaine Charlson Bredehoft, Jennifer A. Hess Smith, Charlson Bredehoft, P.C., Resten, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

In this cross-appeal, William J. Guidiee appeals from the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion for a new trial after a jury awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages to Plaintiff Reginald O. Moore on his defamation claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Moore v. Guidice, No. CA-01-1886-A (E.D.Va. filed Dec. 13, 2002 & entered Dec. 17, 2002). 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 
      
       The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).