Case Name: Gerod STUKES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Claude STAFFORD, individually, Defendant-Appellee, and John Newhart, individually, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-04-24
Citations: 11 F. App'x 146
Docket Number: No. 00-1582
Parties: Gerod STUKES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Claude STAFFORD, individually, Defendant-Appellee, and John Newhart, individually, Defendant.
Judges: Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 11
Pages: 146–146

Head Matter:
Gerod STUKES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Claude STAFFORD, individually, Defendant-Appellee, and John Newhart, individually, Defendant.
No. 00-1582.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 28, 2001.
Decided April 24, 2001.
Beverly D. Crawford, Richmond, VA, for appellant. Jeff W. Rosen, Lisa Ehrich, Pender & Coward, Virginia Beach, VA, for appellee.
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
At the close of Gerod Stukes' presentation of evidence in his trial alleging employment discrimination, the district court granted Claude Stafford's motion for judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R .Civ.P. 50(a). Stukes appeals from that final order and also alleges that the district court erred by refusing to admit certain exhibits into evidence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Having reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we do not find that the district court abused its discretion in its challenged evidentiary ruling. United States v. Fernandez, 913 F.2d 148, 152-53 (4th Cir.1990). Regarding the district court's order granting Stafford's Rule 50(a) motion, we have reviewed the record and the district court's,opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Stukes v. Stafford, No. CA-99-1105-2 (E.D.Va. filed Apr. 5, 2000; entered Apr. 6, 2000). 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.