For the following reasons, we affirm the district court:

1. We find no material difference between this case and the claims made in Austin v. Will-Burt Co., 361 F.3d 862 (5th Cir. 2004). Because Austin controls this case, we find that the district court did not err in granting the defendant’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on plaintiffs defective design claim.

2. We further find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow the plaintiff to introduce an exhibit showing that the defendant got eight responses to thousands of cautionary mail-outs it sent. No post-sale duty to warn exists under Mississippi law, nor may a party be held liable for negligent performance of a voluntary act unless the plaintiff detrimentally relied upon the performance. Austin, 361 F.3d at 870. It is clear that the plaintiff did not detrimentally rely on the mail-outs, as he admits to having no knowledge of them. Thus, the district court did not err in excluding this exhibit for relevance.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district courtis

AFFIRMED.