Court Opinion

ID: 9475193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:19:34.486809+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:44:33.505334
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
Being convinced that the district court ruled correctly in granting William F. Clark’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict following the jury verdict in favor of Richard A. Whalen, we affirm the district court’s decision.* The bases for our conclusion are set forth in the concurring and dissenting opinion filed by Judge Ervin as part of the opinion of the original panel. Whalen v. Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, 769 F.2d 221, 226 (4th Cir.1985).
AFFIRMED.

 In light of our action concerning the judgment notwithstanding the verdict, we need not address the propriety of the conditional denial of Clark’s motion for a new trial. See 9 C. Wright and A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2540 at 618 (1971).