* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-11025 Summary Calendar

MARCUS DWAYNE MAYBERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. TABITHA R HEFNER; GARY DODDS; MATTHEW M HALL; LEE A FIELDS; CRAIG A RAINES; EDDIE WHEELER, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:96-CV-284-BA

- - - - - - - - - - February 10, 2000 Before KING, Chief Judge, and WIENER and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Plaintiff-Appellant Marcus Dwayne Mayberry (“Mayberry”), Texas prisoner #605575, appeals from a judgment entered as a matter of law in favor of Defendant-Appellee Tabitha R. Hefner(“Hefner”), and from a jury verdict in favor of DefendantsAppellees Matthew M. Hall (“Hall”) and Lee A. Fields (“Fields”).
We AFFIRM.1 Gary Dodds, Craig Raines, and Eddie Wheeler were also

named as defendants in Mayberry’s complaint. However, they were never served and were not a part of the trial below.

2 See Mayberry v. Hefner , No. 97-10130 (5 th Cir. Dec. 11, 1997) (unpublished).
2 Mayberry claims that his constitutional rights were violated by Hefner, the prison property officer, when she destroyed his personal radio after it had been confiscated by prison authorities. Mayberry contends that Hefner destroyed the radio in retaliation for grievances he had filed against her on previous occasions. Mayberry also asserts that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated by prison guards Hall and Fields. Mayberry claims that he was injured by the guards’ unnecessary use of force. All parties involved agreed to have the case tried before a United States Magistrate Judge. At the close of evidence, the magistrate granted Hefner’s motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50. Mayberry’s claims against Hall and Fields were submitted to the jury. The jury returned verdicts in favor of Hall and Fields. 1 On appeal, Mayberry argues that the magistrate judge abused his discretion in handling Hefner’s and Hall’s testimony, failed to follow this court’s prior opinion, 2 and erred in granting Hefner’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. The magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion in the handling of Hall’s and Hefner’s testimony. See United States v. Kizzee , 150 F.3d 497, 502 (5 th Cir. 1998). In addition, ourNo. 98-11025 -3-

3 review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge did not err in granting Hefner’s motion for judgment as a matter of law.
See Garcia v. Woman's Hosp. of Texas , 143 F.3d 227, 229 (5 th Cir. 1998). Mayberry failed to introduce any direct evidence that Hefner retaliated against him, nor did he introduce any evidence indicating a chronology of events from which retaliation may be reasonably inferred. See Woods v. Smith , 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5 th Cir. 1995). Lastly, we find that the trial court’s conduct was not in conflict with the authority cited in our earlier opinion in this

case. Mayberry’s motion to amend the record on appeal to include exhibit #1 is DENIED because his issues on appeal do not implicate that exhibit. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED and all outstanding motions are DENIED.