FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT JUNE 28 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11417 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 1 3 1 2 - CV - 5 - I PJ J E S S I E M C D A N I E L , an i nd i vi du al and as A dm i ni stra t or o f th e E s ta te o f

R o g e rW a y n e M c D a n ie l, d e c e a s e d , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s C U L L M A N C O U N T Y , A L , as t a t e e nt i tybya nd thr ough the C ul l m a n C o u n tyC o m m is s io n , a s s ta te e n tity , T Y L E R R O D E N , C u l l m an C o u n ty S h eri ff, i n h i s in d iv id u a l c ap a c ity , B R I A N B U E G L E R , C u llm a n C o u n tyJ a il W a r d e n ; L t., C ul l m a n C ountyJ a i l A dm i ni s tr a t or , i n h i s i n d i v i d u al cap aci ty J O H N K E Y S , C u llm a n C o u n tyJ a ile r , O f f ic e r , in d iv id u a l c ap a c ity , D efen d an t s-A p p el l ees.2 ________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( Ju n e 28, 2006) B efo re C A RN E S , B A R K E T T an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: Je ss i e M cD ani el appeal s f rom the di stri ctcourt ’ s grantof sum m ary ju d g m e n t to d e f

e n d a n ts o n w r o n g f

u l d e a th a n d § 1 9 8 3 c la im s r e la tin g to th e d e a th o f h is s o n , R o g e rW a y n e M c D a n ie l, in A lab a m a ’s C u llm a n C o u n tyJ a il. W e un ders t and Jes si e M cD ani el t o rai se three re l at ed bu tdi st i nctar gu m ent s: fi rs t , that th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n in a d m ittin g th e te s tim o n yo f D r . E m ily W a r d a s a n e xpe rtw i tne s s ; s e c ond, tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s rul i ng s houl d be r e ve r s e d upon de nov o re vi ew because D r. W ar d’ s a l l egedl y i nadm i ss i bl e e xp ert te s tim o n yw a s a n e s s e n tia l b a s is f o rth e c o u rt’s g r a n t o f

s u m m a ryju d g m e n t to D ef endant s; and thi rd, i n the al t ernat i ve, thatD r. W ar d’ s t es t i m on y w as i nadm i ss i bl e a s hears ayt o the ext enti tw as fa ctual ra ther than exp ertevi dence. W e a g r e e w ith J e s s ie M c D a n ie l th a t D r . W a r d ’s te s tim o n yis p r o p e r ly un ders t oo d as e xp ertt es t i m on y. B uteven i f, as such, i t s a dm i ss i on const i tut ed an erroneou s abu se of di sc re t i on , w e m ayno tre vers e the di stri ctcourt ’ s r el at ed3

evi dent i ary rul i ng un l es s i tre sul t ed i n “ subst ant i al prej ud i ce . ” C on roy v. A braham C hev. -T am pa, Inc. , 37 5 F . 3d 12 28 , 12 32 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). T he on l y pre j ud i ce al l egedl y s uffe re d b y J es si e M cD ani el w as the di stri ctcourt s’ s r el i ance up on D r. W ar d’ s t es t i m on y i n con si deri ng D ef endant s’ m ot i on for s um m ary j ud gm ent . T hat t e s t i m ony , how e ve r , di d no m or e tha n c onf i rm the othe rw i s e unr e f

ut e d r e s ul t s of a n aut ops yc onduc t e d byA l aba m aD e pa rtm e ntof F or e ns i c S c i e nc e s . H a vi ng p r e s e n te d n o s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e o f h is o w n , J e s s ie M c D a n ie l c a n n o t s u c c e s s f u lly claim th at h e s u ff

er ed p re ju d ice f ro m th e a d m issio n o r c o n sid er atio n o f D r. W ar d ’s m erel y co rro b o rat i v e t est i m o n y. T h is sa m e lo g ic also ex p lain s w h y w e c an n o t rev er se th e d istrict co u rt’s s um m a ryj udgm e ntupon de no vo r e vi e w . T he onl yba s i s f ortha tr e que s ti s the d is tr ic t c o u rt’s a d m is s io n a n d u s e o f D r . W a r d ’s te s tim o n y–w h ic h , a g a in , s im p ly c onf i rm e d a n othe rw i s e unc ontr a di c t e d f i ndi ng on one of

anum be rof

que s t i ons ( th e c au s e o f

R o g e r ’s d e a th ) a t is s u e in th is c a s e . I t is th e r e f o r e im p o s s ib le th a t, had D r. W ar d’ s e xp ertt es t i m on y bee n excl ud ed, a genui ne i ss ue of m at er i al fa ct w oul d ha ve r e m a i ne d t o pr e c l ude s um m a ryj udgm e nt . A c c or di ngl y , the de c i s i on o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt is AF F I RME D.