UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT L. BARR, SR., Individually

and as Administrator of the Estate

of Robert L. Barr, Jr.; CATHERINE

BARR, Individually,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

No. 96-1594

v.

ANNE ARUNDEL MEDICAL CENTER;

ROSEMARY LETHBRIDGE, M.D.,

Defendants-Appellees.

ROBERT L. BARR, SR., Individually

and as Administrator of the Estate

of Robert L. Barr, Jr.; CATHERINE

BARR, Individually,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

No. 96-1639

ANNE ARUNDEL MEDICAL CENTER,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

ROSEMARY LETHBRIDGE, M.D.,

Defendant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Joseph H. Young, Senior District Judge.

(CA-95-1003-Y)

Argued: April 7, 1997

Decided: April 29, 1997
Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Frank McClellan, EATON, MCCLELLAN & ALLEN,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellants. James Thomas Wharton,

WHARTON, LEVIN, EHRMANTRAUT, KLEIN & NASH, P.A.,

Annapolis, Maryland; Kurt D. Karsten, COWDREY, THOMPSON &

KARSTEN, P.A., Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellees. ON BRIEF:

Christian A. Lodowski, WHARTON, LEVIN, EHRMANTRAUT,

KLEIN & NASH, P.A., Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee Lethbridge.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Robert L. Barr, Sr., on behalf of himself and his wife, and as

administrator of the estate of his son, Robert L. Barr, Jr., appeals the

judgment of the district court in a wrongful death suit. Robert L. Barr,

Jr. was a midshipman at the United States Naval Academy, where, on

September 12, 1989, he suffered a near-drowning accident in a swimming pool. Witnesses testified that Barr Jr. was found near the bottom

of the pool with reddish and white mucous fluid coming out of his

mouth. Rescuers saved Barr and resuscitated him with CPR. One witness testified that Barr Jr. vomited at least a quart of fluid while he

was being resuscitated.

 2
Emergency medical personnel transported Barr Jr. to Anne Arundel

Medical Center ("AAMC") by ambulance, where he was attended by

the emergency room physician, Rosemary Lethbridge, M.D. After

receiving treatment, Barr Jr. was transferred to the Intensive Care

Unit, where he developed a lung infection. After another transfer, to

the University of Maryland Shock Trauma Center, he died on September 25, 1991.

Barr Sr. filed suit against AAMC and Dr. Lethbridge. He asserted

a wrongful death action against AAMC, claiming that AAMC's

agents and employees were negligent in the medical care they provided Barr Jr. Barr Sr. also claimed that Dr. Lethbridge's treatment

of Barr Jr. fell below the applicable standard of care, and contributed

to his death. An eight-day jury trial followed. The jury returned verdicts in favor of both defendants.

The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial. On

appeal, Barr Sr. raises five issues: (1) the verdict was against the great

weight of the evidence; (2) the court admitted an inaccurate summary

of care prepared by the defendants; (3) the district court improperly

awarded each defendant two peremptory challenges; (4) the court

abused its discretion in refusing to inquire about the racial attitudes

of the venire; and (5) the defendants used all of their peremptory challenges to strike four African-Americans.

We have carefully reviewed the record, considered the submissions

of the parties, and heard oral argument. We find that the record supports the majority of the information in the summary chart. Any other

inaccuracies are immaterial. Nonetheless, the summary chart should

have been authenticated by its preparer before the district court admitted it. This error does not require reversal, however, given the extensive evidence in the record supporting the jury's verdict.

None of the other issues give us cause to reverse the district court.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED

 3