Court Opinion

ID: 999281
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:23:19.032432+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:32:33.014201
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTOPHER KIRHAGIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.                                                                No. 98-1779

HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Andre M. Davis, District Judge.
(CA-97-757-AMD)

Submitted: June 29, 1999

Decided: July 19, 1999

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and KING,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Dennis E. Cuomo, Wayne S. Goddard, LAW OFFICES OF DENNIS
E. CUOMO, Towson, Maryland, for Appellant. Scott A. Mills, Tif-
fany Hosey, JACKSON & CAMPBELL, P.C., Washington, D.C., for
Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Kirhagis appeals the district court's decision granting
judgment as a matter of law to Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. (Home
Depot) in this personal injury action. Kirhagis alleged that he was
injured by a bundle of metal studding that fell from a shelf in a Home
Depot store in Baltimore County, Maryland. He asserted that the stud-
ding fell after a forklift operated by an unidentified Home Depot
employee bumped into the shelves and dislodged the material. At the
close of the evidence, the district court granted Home Depot's motion
for judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50.

On appeal, Kirhagis asserts that the district court erred in entering
judgment as a matter of law. He alleges that, in granting the motion,
the court assessed the credibility of the witnesses and failed to con-
sider the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

In ruling on a motion for judgment, the district court considers
whether there is a "legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable
jury to find for" plaintiff. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a). The court should draw
reasonable inferences for the nonmoving party, but may not indulge
in sheer speculation. Gibson v. Old Town Trolley Tours of Washing-
ton, D.C., Inc., 160 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 1998). A district court sit-
ting in diversity applies the federal standard in ruling on a motion for
judgment as a matter of law. DeMaine v. Bank One, Akron, N.A., 904
F.2d 219, 220 (4th Cir. 1990). Such a motion should be granted if
plaintiff has not produced substantial evidence to support his claim.
White v. County of Newberry, 985 F.2d 168, 173 (4th Cir. 1993). This
Court reviews the grant or denial of such a motion de novo, with the
evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, ___ F.3d ___ (4th Cir. Apr. 5, 1999) (Nos.
98-1024, 98-1595), slip op. at 6. Having done so, we conclude that
the district court did not err in entering judgment pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 50.

                    2
We affirm the district court's judgment against Kirhagis. We dis-
pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and oral argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3