Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03893/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03893-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3893

___________

Larry Muldrow, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Robert H. Harrison; J. Van Meter; John *

Doe, Patrolman 1; John Doe, Patrolman *

2, *

Defendants, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

City of Texarkana, Arkansas, * Western District of Arkansas.

*

Appellee, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Patrolman Nick Elrod; Patrolman *

Corwin Harold Battle, *

*

Defendants, *

*

J. Van Meter, In His Individual and *

Official Capacities, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: July 19, 2010

Filed: July 23, 2010

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

Appellate Case: 09-3893 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/23/2010 Entry ID: 3686374
1

The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas.

-2-

PER CURIAM.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Larry Muldrow appeals the district court’s1

adverse grant of partial summary judgment on some of his claims and its judgment

upon a jury verdict on his remaining claim.

Regarding the grant of partial summary judgment, after careful de novo review,

see Johnson v. Blaukat, 453 F.3d 1108, 1112 (8th Cir. 2006), we agree with the

conclusions set forth in the district court’s memorandum opinion. As to the trialrelated issues, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

allowing Muldrow’s prior deposition testimony to be used for impeachment purposes,

see Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(5)(A) (describing circumstances in which deposition must

not be used against party); see also McCoy v. Augusta Fiberglass Coatings, Inc., 593

F.3d 737, 746 (8th Cir. 2010) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for clear abuse of

discretion), and we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying Muldrow’s request for a new trial or err in denying his request for judgment

as a matter of law, see McKnight v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 36 F.3d 1396, 1400 (8th

Cir. 1994) (setting forth standards of review; key question on review of denial of new

trial is whether new trial should have been granted to avoid miscarriage of justice;

judgment as matter of law is appropriate only where all evidence points one way and

is susceptible of no reasonable inference sustaining position of nonmoving party).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3893 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/23/2010 Entry ID: 3686374