UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2173

DAVID RIGGS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WAL-MART STORES, INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

OVERHEAD DOOR COMPANY OF BALTIMORE, INCORPORATED, a Maryland corporation; WASHINGTON OVERHEAD DOOR, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Overhead Door Company of Washington, DC, a Maryland corporation; OVERHEAD DOOR OPENERS, INCORPORATED, a Maryland corporation; BESAM AUTOMATED ENTRANCE SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, a Connecticut corporation; UNITED DOMINION INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED, d/b/a TKO Dock Doors, a Delaware corporation; HPD INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED, d/b/a TKO Dock Doors, a Wisconsin corporation; SPX CORPORATION, d/b/a TKO DockDoors, a Delaware corporation,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-700-JKS) Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 1, 2005

Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Riggs, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Redmond Dunn, DECARO, DORAN, SICILIANO, GALLAGHER & DEBLASIS, LLP, Lanham, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

David Riggs appeals from the district court’s judgment in

his civil negligence suit, entered after a jury verdict for

Wal-Mart Stores, Incorporated. On appeal, Riggs raises only one

issue. He asserts that his attorney failed to subpoena key

witnesses or present other evidence on his behalf. Because Riggs

is bound by the acts of his attorney, see Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

(1962), his remedy lies in a malpractice suit,

not in an appeal from the district court’s judgment.

at 634

n.10; see also Universal Film Exchs., Inc. v. Lust,

(4th Cir. 1973) (finding grossly negligent behavior by

attorney did not constitute exceptional circumstances meriting

reconsideration). Thus, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

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

- 3 -