Court Opinion

ID: 1000612
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:43:20.209995+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:57:21.794029
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

RANDY M. MOTT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.                                                                    No. 99-1381

DEBORAH S. MOTT,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge.
(CA-98-917-A)

Submitted: December 22, 1999

Decided: January 12, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Randy M. Mott, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah S. Mott, McLean, Vir-
ginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Randy Mott appeals a jury verdict in favor of Defendant Deborah
Mott and the district court's order denying his motion for a new trial
in his civil action for slander.

On appeal, Randy Mott contends that (1) the court abused its dis-
cretion in excluding tape-recorded prior inconsistent statements and
party admissions; (2) the court abused its discretion in refusing to
allow him the opportunity to impeach his own witness; (3) the court
erred in allowing Deborah Mott's witnesses to allegedly perjure them-
selves; (4) the court plainly erred in allowing prejudicial extraneous
remarks during Deborah Mott's opening statement; (5) the court
abused its discretion in sustaining objections to Randy Mott's closing
argument; and (6) the court abused its discretion by improperly
instructing the jury concerning slander and punitive damages. We
have reviewed the record and affirm.

We find that Appellant Mott did not properly preserve the issue of
whether the court erred in failing to admit taped prior inconsistent
statements and party admissions because he failed to make an offer
of proof at trial. See Fed. R. Evid. 103(a)(2). Accordingly, that issue
is not properly before this court for review. Furthermore, we conclude
that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow
Randy Mott to impeach Jessica Mott. It is clear that the district court
foreclosed Randy's effort to impeach Jessica not because she was his
witness, but because the line of questioning Randy sought to pursue
was impermissible. In addition, we find Randy's claim that witnesses
perjured themselves meritless.

Moreover, we conclude that the court did not plainly err in allow-
ing certain allegedly prejudicial remarks by opposing counsel. See
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993); see also In Re
Celotex Corp., 124 F.3d 619, 630 (4th Cir. 1997) (applying plain error
review to civil action). We also conclude that the court properly sus-
tained objections to Randy Mott's closing argument referring to the
tape because the recording was not admitted into evidence. See
United States v. Henry, 2 F.3d 792, 794 (7th Cir. 1993). Finally, we

                     2
find that Mott did not preserve the issue of whether the court properly
instructed the jury concerning slander because he did not object to the
instruction at trial. Nor does the record reflect that the objection was
previously clearly made to the court. See City of Richmond v. Madi-
son Management Group, 918 F.2d 438, 453 (4th Cir. 1990). Further-
more, any error in the court's instruction concerning punitive
damages was harmless because the jury did not reach the issue of
damages. See Taylor v. Virginia Union Univ., 193 F.3d 219, 235 (4th
Cir. 1999) (applying harmless error analysis to civil case).

Accordingly, we affirm the jury verdict and the court's order deny-
ing Appellant Mott's motion for a new trial. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3