Davis v. Bittenbender

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6034

JEROME LOUIS DAVIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

M. J. BITTENBENDER, Detective; LIEUTENANT

MCKOY; SHERIFF ROBERTS; MAJOR ADAMS,

Defendants - Appellees, and

SHERIFF MICHAELS; MAGISTRATE POWHATAN COUNTY;

CAPTAIN CARSON,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-90-4)

Submitted: May 31, 1996 Decided: July 2, 1996

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome Louis Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Brody Rashkind, FURNISS, DAVIS, RASHKIND & SAUNDERS, Norfolk, Virginia; Richard David Caplan, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Hampton, Virginia; John Adrian Gibney, Jr., Bradley Brent Cavedo, SHUFORD, RUBIN & GIBNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Jerome Davis appeals from a jury verdict in favor of the Defendant on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) claim, alleging that the magistrate judge erred in several pre-trial rulings. 1 We affirm. Davis claims that the magistrate judge erred by: (1) failing and/or refusing to subpoena requested witnesses; (2) denying Davis' motion to sever the trial; (3) denying Davis' motion for continu- ance; (4) denying Davis' motion for appointment of counsel; (5) not "intertain[ing] [Davis'] motion of objection to certain jury in- structions;" and (6) allowing the defense to use Davis' criminal conviction. Our review reveals no error in the magistrate judge's rulings. Davis also alleges that some of the jury members were asleep during portions of his trial and that the magistrate judge used "scare tactics" to keep him from objecting. We find these scant allegations, without more, insufficient to warrant reversal of the jury's verdict. Accordingly, we affirm the jury verdict in favor of the Defendant.2 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED