Court Opinion

ID: 995410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:37:03.234007+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:16:04.000525
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

KEVIN JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MILTON BOONE, Correctional Officer;
RUDOLPH BAILEY, Correctional
Officer; TERRENCE JONES,
Correctional Officer; MICHAEL
LYNCH, Correctional Officer;
CHARLEEN ROBINSON, Correctional                                     No. 97-7053
Officer; WILLIAM HEALEY,
Correctional Officer,
Defendants-Appellees,

and

C. LONG, Correctional Officer; R. C.
JOHNSON, Correctional Officer;
HARVEY, Correctional Officer,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
W. Curtis Sewell, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-95-101-AM)

Submitted: June 9, 1998

Decided: July 1, 1998

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Kevin Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Collin Jefferson Hite, SANDS,
ANDERSON, MARKS & MILLER, Richmond, Virginia; Susan
Campbell Alexander, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Vir-
ginia, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Kevin Johnson appeals from the jury verdict in favor of
Defendants in his action brought under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 (1994).
Johnson claimed that Defendants used excessive force against him in
an incident which took place at the correctional center where Johnson
is incarcerated. The case was referred to a magistrate judge for trial,
see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994), and Johnson proceeded pro se. Follow-
ing the jury verdict in favor of Defendants, Johnson moved for a
retrial on several grounds, which the magistrate judge denied. John-
son timely appealed. On appeal, Johnson raises the same claims that
were raised in his motion for a retrial, as well as a claim that the mag-
istrate judge improperly denied his motion for a retrial. Our review
of the record, the transcripts, and Johnson's brief reveals that the dis-
trict court did not abuse its discretion by denying Johnson's motion
for a retrial. See Benedi v. McNeil-P.P.C., Inc. , 66 F.3d 1378, 1383
(4th Cir. 1995).

Because Johnson's claims on appeal do not provide a basis for
overturning the jury verdict in favor of Defendants, we affirm. We
deny Johnson's motions to suspend Local Rule 24 and to grant him

                    2
relief from his in forma pauperis status. We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately set out in
the materials before the court and oral argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3