Court Opinion

ID: 991919
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:44:00.748359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:37:47.094577
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

GARY MEHARG, a South Carolina
Individual; PAMELA MEHARG, a
South Carolina Individual,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.                                                                  No. 96-1074

FREDDY POZNICK, a South Carolina
Individual; SUSAN POZNICK, a South
Carolina Individual,
Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Greenwood.
G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-95-1387-8-3)

Submitted: March 31, 1997

Decided: April 11, 1997

Before HALL, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Symmes Watkins Culbertson, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appel-
lants. J. Stephen Welch, WELCH & CRAIN, L.L.C., Greenwood,
South Carolina, for Appellees.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellants, Susan and Freddy Poznick, appeal the jury's verdicts
finding them liable for violating the Electronic Communications Pri-
vacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(c) (1994), and the trial court's order
denying their FED. R. CIV. P. 59 motion and granting the Appellees'
motion for attorney's fees. After the jury was dismissed, the Poznicks
moved for a new trial asserting that the jury's verdicts were fatally
inconsistent, and that the trial court had erroneously instructed the
jury concerning damages. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

The Poznicks failed to raise the issue of consistent verdicts before
the jury was discharged; thus, they waived their right to raise this
issue on appeal. See White v. Celotex Corp., 878 F.2d 144, 146 (4th
Cir. 1989). Moveover, the Poznicks waived their right to challenge
the trial court's supplemental instruction in response to the jury's
question, "[d]o we have to award ten thousand dollars?" When asked
by the court whether they had any objections to the court's answer,
"[y]ou may award zero damages or you may award ten thousand dol-
lars damages," counsel replied, "[n]one from the defense, your
honor." Additionally, our review of the instructions given by the court
reveals that they, "construed as a whole, and in light of the whole
record, adequately informed the jury of the controlling legal princi-
ples without misleading or confusing the jury." Spell v. McDaniel,
824 F.2d 1380, 1395 (4th Cir. 1987).

Accordingly, the jury's verdicts and the district court's order deny-
ing the Poznicks' Rule 59 motion for a new trial and granting the
Mehargs' motion for attorney's fees are affirmed. 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

                    2