Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-30465/USCOURTS-ca5-03-30465-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 13, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

Summary Calendar

No. 03-30465

_______________________

FABIAN SHAWL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL FLOWERS, ET AL.,

Defendants,

STEPHANIE FLOWERS; STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO.,

improperly referred to as State Farm Insurance Company,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

Civil Docket No. 02-CV-1419

_________________________________________________________________

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This appeal arises out of a jury award for general and

special damages resulting from a car accident in April 2001.

Appellant Fabian Shawl argues that the jury erred by awarding only

$12,000 in general damages for pain and suffering. Shawl made the

same argument before the district court in a Rule 59 motion arguing

for an increase in the general damages awarded by the jury. On

 Case: 03-30465 Document: 0051392190 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/13/2004
April 7, 2003, the district court issued a written order denying

Shawl’s motion for additur. We review a district court’s award of

damages for clear error. See Nichols v. Petroleum Helicopters,

Inc., 17 F.3d 119, 121 (5th Cir. 1994) (“[M]ere disagreement with

the district court's analysis of the record is insufficient . . .

we will not reverse a finding although there is evidence to support

it, unless the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with

the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been

committed.") (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

After closely reviewing the record below, we find no clear error

and agree with the district court’s well-reasoned resolution of

this matter.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-30465 Document: 0051392190 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/13/2004