UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTOPHER KIRHAGIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 98-1779

HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Andre M. Davis, District Judge.

(CA-97-757-AMD)

Submitted: June 29, 1999

Decided: July 19, 1999

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and KING,

Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Dennis E. Cuomo, Wayne S. Goddard, LAW OFFICES OF DENNIS

E. CUOMO, Towson, Maryland, for Appellant. Scott A. Mills, Tiffany Hosey, JACKSON & CAMPBELL, P.C., Washington, D.C., for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Kirhagis appeals the district court's decision granting

judgment as a matter of law to Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. (Home

Depot) in this personal injury action. Kirhagis alleged that he was

injured by a bundle of metal studding that fell from a shelf in a Home

Depot store in Baltimore County, Maryland. He asserted that the studding fell after a forklift operated by an unidentified Home Depot

employee bumped into the shelves and dislodged the material. At the

close of the evidence, the district court granted Home Depot's motion

for judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50.

On appeal, Kirhagis asserts that the district court erred in entering

judgment as a matter of law. He alleges that, in granting the motion,

the court assessed the credibility of the witnesses and failed to consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

In ruling on a motion for judgment, the district court considers

whether there is a "legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable

jury to find for" plaintiff. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a). The court should draw

reasonable inferences for the nonmoving party, but may not indulge

in sheer speculation. Gibson v. Old Town Trolley Tours of Washington, D.C., Inc., 160 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 1998). A district court sitting in diversity applies the federal standard in ruling on a motion for

judgment as a matter of law. DeMaine v. Bank One, Akron, N.A., 904

F.2d 219, 220 (4th Cir. 1990). Such a motion should be granted if

plaintiff has not produced substantial evidence to support his claim.

White v. County of Newberry, 985 F.2d 168, 173 (4th Cir. 1993). This

Court reviews the grant or denial of such a motion de novo, with the

evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, ___ F.3d ___ (4th Cir. Apr. 5, 1999) (Nos.

98-1024, 98-1595), slip op. at 6. Having done so, we conclude that

the district court did not err in entering judgment pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 50.

 2
We affirm the district court's judgment against Kirhagis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and oral argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3