Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01312/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01312-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1312

___________

James Charles Fudge, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

J. T. Banks, Assistant Warden, Varner *

Super Max, ADC; R. Evans, Lt., Varner *

Super Max, ADC; E. Hobbs, Lt., *

Arkansas Department of Corrections; * [UNPUBLISHED]

T. Nelson-Courtney, Correctional *

Officer, Varner Super Max, ADC; *

R. McCarrell, originally sued as *

K. McCarrell, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: February 26, 2010

Filed: March 3, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 09-1312 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2010 Entry ID: 3640306
1

The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

-2-

Arkansas inmate James Fudge appeals from the judgment of the District Court1

entered in accordance with a jury verdict in favor of defendants on Fudge's excessiveforce claims. Upon careful review, we find no basis for reversal. Specifically, we

find no merit to Fudge’s arguments on appeal, all of which relate to the District

Court’s handling of voir dire and evidentiary matters during trial. See Nicklasson v.

Roper, 491 F.3d 830, 835 (8th Cir. 2007) ("The conduct of voir dire is generally left

to the trial court’s sound discretion."), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2052 (2008); Cavataio

v. City of Bella Villa, 570 F.3d 1015, 1020 (8th Cir. 2009) (noting that this Court will

reverse on the basis of an erroneous evidentiary ruling only if that ruling is a clear and

prejudicial abuse of the district court's broad discretion); EEOC v. HBE Corp., 135

F.3d 543, 551 (8th Cir. 1998) ("A timely and specific objection is necessary for a

successful evidentiary appeal in the absence of plain error."). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-1312 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2010 Entry ID: 3640306