Case Name: Peter PRYCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-11
Citations: 422 F. App'x 229
Docket Number: No. 10-1003
Parties: Peter PRYCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 422
Pages: 229–229

Head Matter:
Peter PRYCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 10-1003.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 14, 2011.
Decided: April 11, 2011.
Thomas B. Corbin, Thomas B. Corbin, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Linda Hitt Thatcher, Robert J. Baror, Thatcher Law Firm, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before KING, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Peter Pryce appeals the magistrate judge's order entering judgment for the Appellee following the jury's verdict in favor of the Appellee on Pryce's claim of retaliation. As Pryce failed to file a post-verdict motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50, and failed to move for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59, however, this court is without power to review his claim regarding the sufficiency of the evidence. See Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394, 400-07, 126 S.Ct. 980, 163 L.Ed.2d 974 (2006); see also A Helping Hand, LLC v. Baltimore County, 515 F.3d 356, 369-70 (4th Cir.2008). Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge's order. 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.