Case ID: f-appx_9/html/0104-01.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

P.U.D., INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRUCE T. CRAIG, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 99-1937.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 30, 2001.
    Decided May 2, 2001.
    Charles Thomas Ross, Ross Law Firm, Winston Salem, NC, for appellant.
    Robert J. Weil, Howe, Anderson & Steyer, P.C., Washington, DC, for appellee.
    Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

P.U.D., Inc. appeals the district court’s order granting judgment as a matter of law to Bruce T. Craig, Inc. in P.U.D.’s civil action. We have previously granted the joint motion of the parties to submit the case for a decision on the briefs, without oral argument.

This court reviews de novo the district court’s order granting the Defendant’s Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to P.U.D., the party prevailing at trial, and giving P.U.D. the benefit of all reasonable inferences. Austin v. Paramount Parks, Inc., 195 F.3d 715, 727 (4th Cir.1999). If there is evidence upon which a reasonable jury could have found in the prevailing party’s favor, the court is obliged to affirm the jury’s verdict. Duke v. Uniroyal, Inc., 928 F.2d 1413, 1417 (4th Cir.1991). Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate when “there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis” to support the jury’s verdict. Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(1). We have reviewed the record in light of P.U.D.’s arguments and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See P.U.D., Inc. v. Bruce T. Craig, Inc., No. 5:97-CV-573-H(2) (E.D.N.C. June 4,1999).

AFFIRMED.