UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT MADELINE E. BOOTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 98-1373 SHONEY'S, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon.

James P. Jones, District Judge. (CA-97-73-A) Argued: May 6, 1999 Decided: June 28, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Gray Robinson, JACKSON & ROBINSON, Bristol, Vir- ginia, for Appellant. Jeffrey Franklin Brooke, HUFF, POOLE & MAHONEY, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Thomas C. Jessee, JESSEE & JESSEE, Johnson City, Ten- nessee, for Appellant. Linda S. Westenburger, HUFF, POOLE & MAHONEY, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: In this diversity "slip and fall" case, Madeline E. Booth alleged that Shoney's, Inc. negligently failed to maintain the premises of its rest- room by permitting water to gather on the floor, thus constituting a hazard to patrons who utilized the sinks to wash their hands. Booth asserted that Shoney's negligence in allowing the restroom floor to be wet caused her to slip and fall, breaking her hip.

At the close of Booth's evidence, Shoney's moved for a judgment as a matter of law. Although the district court indicated concern about "the sufficiency of the evidence," the court denied the motion. At the close of all of the evidence, Shoney's renewed its motion for judg- ment as a matter of law, which the district court then granted. Booth appeals asserting that the district court erred in granting the motion.

After having had the benefit of oral argument and briefing from the parties, and after carefully reviewing the legal authorities and record, we conclude that the district court did not err in any respect in grant- ing judgment for Shoney's. We affirm on the basis of the district court's well-reasoned oral opinion.

AFFIRMED