UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

FRANKLYN C. SHULMAN; ESTATE OF

EMANUEL V. SHULMAN; ERICAL

TRUST,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

CIGNA PROPERTY & CASUALTY

INSURANCE COMPANY; THE FEDERAL

No. 96-1697

INSURANCE COMPANY; CHUBB GROUP

OF INSURANCE COMPANIES,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

HUNTINGTON T. BLOCK INSURANCE

AGENCY, INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge.

(CA-95-660-A)

Submitted: August 28, 1997

Decided: September 12, 1997

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

Franklyn C. Shulman, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Seth Greenhill,

LAW OFFICES OF IRA J. GREENHILL, New York, New York;

Craig David Roswell, NILES, BARTON & WILMER, Baltimore,

Maryland, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellants filed this diversity action in district court, seeking to

recover from three insurance companies for the theft of four prints

that Appellant Franklyn C. Shulman asserted were stolen from his

apartment. The case went to a jury, which was unable to reach a verdict. A second jury decided in favor of defendants. Appellants filed

a motion for judgment as a matter of law, Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b), or

for a new trial, Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a). On the district court's denial of

these motions, Appellants noted an appeal.

In reviewing the denial of a Rule 50(b) motion, we must uphold the

district court's ruling unless we find, taking all the evidence in favor

of the prevailing parties and giving them the benefit of all inferences,

that no reasonable juror could have returned the challenged verdict.

Trandes Corp. v. Guy F. Atkinson Co., 996 F.2d 655, 660 (4th Cir.

1993). That standard is not met in this case. Reasonable jurors could

conclude here that Appellants failed to establish Shulman's ownership

and possession of the prints in issue, or that he failed to comply with

the terms of the policies.

We review denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion under an abuse

of discretion standard. EEOC v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 116 F.3d

 2
110, 112 (4th Cir. 1997). After considering the issues raised by

Appellants, we find no such abuse in this case.

A review of the transcript convinces us that the district court did

not allow counsel for Appellees to subvert the court's ruling as to

introduction of certain background evidence concerning Shulman, and

that opposing counsel did not engage in a psychological campaign to

prejudice the jury against Shulman. Appellants' complaints against

their own trial counsel do not entitle them to relief on appeal. We find

no merit in any of the other claims raised by Appellants.

Accordingly, we grant Appellees' motions for summary affirmance. We deny Appellants' motions for general relief and for sanctions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3