Carmelle Abron v. City of Minneapolis

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-2558

___________

Carmelle Abron, individually and on * behalf of her minor daughter Bretaina * Brigham; Elizabeth Elliston, * individually and on behalf of her minor * daughter, Clarissa Nolan, *

*

Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota.

City of Minneapolis, and its employee/ * police officer Stender (Badge No. * [UNPUBLISHED] 6791); Stender, Police Officer Badge * No. 6791, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: December 21, 1998 Filed: December 28, 1998

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Carmelle Abron and Elizabeth Elliston, individually and on behalf of their minor daughters, appeal from the district court’s1 denial of their motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial after they failed to object to omission of jury instructions and special verdict questions regarding their claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. Ann. §§ 363.01-.20 (West 1991 & Supp. 1998). Having carefully reviewed the parties& submissions, we conclude that the district court was correct. See Horstmyer v. Black & Decker, (U.S.), Inc., 151 F.3d 765, 771 (8th Cir. 1998) (plain error standard of review); Schmid v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 827 F.2d 384, 385-86 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (absent transcript, court could not review appellant’s arguments related to evidentiary issues), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1071 (1988). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

1 The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation in the District of Minnesota.