* Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 95-30927

Summary Calendar

_____________________

VAN BROCK; MARIE BROCK,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

WAL-MART STORES INC, doing business as Sam's Wholesale Club,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

(CA-93-155-B-M2)

________________________________________________

January 29, 1996

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In this personal injury action appeal, concerning the

exclusion of testimony by a safety expert, Van and Marie Brock

contest the grant of a motion in limine and the denial of a motion

for reconsideration. We AFFIRM

.

I.

Van Brock was allegedly injured when he fell over a concrete

automobile bumper block, which was painted yellow and positioned at

the head of a ha ndicapped parking space in the parking lot of2

defendant Wal-Mart. Brock claimed, under theories of strict

liability and negligence, that the block was dangerous and created

a hazard to persons walking in the parking lot.

The parties consented to trial before a magistrate judge.

Wal-Mart's motion in limine to exclude any evidence, reference, or

jury instruction pertaining to the testimony of Michael J. Frenzel,

Brock's safety expert, was granted. Brock moved for

reconsideration and submitted the expert's report to the court for

review; the motion was denied. Brock then moved to amend the order

denying reconsideration in order to allow an interlocutory appeal;

that motion was denied also.

A jury found that Wal-Mart was not negligent and that the

parking lot was not defective. Judgment was entered for Wal-Mart.

II.

At issue is whether the district court erred in granting WalMart's motion in limine and in denying Brock's motion for

reconsideration. In order to preserve for appeal the denial or

g ranting of a motion in limine, a party must object w hen the

s ubject covered by the motion arises at trial. U nited States v.

Graves

, 5 F.3d 1546, 1551-52 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied

___ U.S.

___, 114 S.Ct. 1829 (1994). Brock has not shown that he made such

an objection. He has not provided a trial transcript; nor has he

asserted this point in his brief; nor do the minute entries of the

trial reflect an objection.3

Because Brock did not provide a trial transcript, we obviously

do not know what occurred at trial. Restated, this issues has not

been preserved. In any event, we will review for plain error.

Under plain error review, Brock must show: "(1) that an error

occurred; (2) that the error was plain, which means clear or

obvious; (3) the plain error must affect subs tantial rights; and

(4) not correcting the error would `seriously affect the fairness,

integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings'".

Highlands Insurance Company v. National Union Fire In surance

Company of Pittsburgh , 27 F.3d 1027, 1031-32 (5th Cir. 1994).

Under F ED

. R. E VID

. 702, expert testimony may be allowed "[i]f

scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist

the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact

in issue". Whether the testimony of an expert witness will assist

the jury is within the sound discretion of the trial judge.

Christopherson v. Allied-Signal Corp

., 939 F.2d 1106, 1109 (5th

Cir. 1991) abrogate d in part by D aubert v. Merrell Dow

Pharmaceuticals , __ U.S. __, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993); United States

v. Johnson

, 575 F.2d 1347, 1360-61 (5th Cir. 1978) (citing Salem v.

United States Lines Company

, 370 U.S. 31 (1962)), cert. denied 440

U.S. 907 (1979).

Brock's expert was to testify that, based on the absence of

bumper blocks other than at the handicapped parking places and on

the fact that the yellow paint used to mark the bumpe r block was

the same as that marking the shopping cart corral, lamp base, and

the parking lot stripes, it was foreseeable that a preoccupied4

pedestrian would fail to notice the bumper block, trip and fall.

The district court's rulings that the expert testimony "lack[ed]

evidence of any scientific knowledge" and would not assist the jury

in determining whether it was foreseeable that a pedestrian would

"fail to notice the bumper block, trip and fall" were not "clear"

or "obvious". There was no plain error.

III.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is

AFFIRMED

.