Case Name: Fabian SHAWL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael FLOWERS, et al., Defendants, Stephanie Flowers; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., improperly referred to as State Farm Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-13
Citations: 87 F. App'x 370
Docket Number: No. 03-30465
Parties: Fabian SHAWL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael FLOWERS, et al., Defendants, Stephanie Flowers; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., improperly referred to as State Farm Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 87
Pages: 370–371

Head Matter:
Fabian SHAWL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael FLOWERS, et al., Defendants, Stephanie Flowers; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., improperly referred to as State Farm Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-30465.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 13, 2004.
Davy Paul Laborde, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Albert David Giraud, Ungarino & Eckert, Metairie, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This appeal arises out of a jury award for general and special damages resulting from a car accident in April 2001. Appellant Fabian Shawl argues that the jury erred by awarding only $12,000 in general damages for pain and suffering. Shawl made the same argument before the district court in a Rule 59 motion arguing for an increase in the general damages awarded by the jury. On April 7, 2003, the district court issued a written order denying Shawl's motion for additur. We review a district court's award of damages for clear error. See Nichols v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., 17 F.3d 119, 121 (5th Cir.1994) ("[M]ere disagreement with the district court's analysis of the record is insufficient . we will not reverse a finding although there is evidence to support it, unless the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.") (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). After closely reviewing the record below, we find no clear error and agree with the district court's well-reasoned resolution of this matter.
The judgment of the district court is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.