Case Name: Richard THOMAS, doing business as Thomas & Associates, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., DefendantAppellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-11-03
Citations: 80 F. App'x 324
Docket Number: No. 03-40393
Parties: Richard THOMAS, doing business as Thomas & Associates, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., DefendantAppellee.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 80
Pages: 324–324

Head Matter:
Richard THOMAS, doing business as Thomas & Associates, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., DefendantAppellee.
No. 03-40393
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 3, 2003.
James Ellis Davis, Davis Munck, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Jeffrey Mark Tillotson, Russell James DePalma, Lynn, Tillotson & Pinker, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Richard Thomas, doing business as Thomas & Associates (Thomas), appeals the denial of his motion for a new trial on the basis of undisclosed juror bias. Because Thomas submitted his motion for a new trial to the clerk of the district court in a timely manner, his motion and his subsequent notice of appeal are timely. See Green v. Administrators of Tulane Educ. Fund, 284 F.3d 642, 652-53 (5th Cir.2002) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 motion).
Thomas asserts that he is entitled to relief because two jurors did not reveal during voir dire their bias against oral contracts, which would have led to their dismissal for cause. Thomas has not established that the jurors in question "failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire." McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 556, 104 S.Ct. 845, 78 L.Ed.2d 663 (1984) (plurality). Moreover, "a finding [of juror bias] is based upon determinations of demeanor and credibility that are peculiarly within a trial judge's province." Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 428, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985). Thomas has not established that the district court abused his discretion in denying his motion for a new trial on the ground of juror bias. See Lincoln v. Case, 340 F.3d 283, 290 (5th Cir.2003). The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.