Esperanza Guerrero v. David Moore

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2373

ESPERANZA GUERRERO,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

and

JUAN GUERRERO; JJG, Minor; MG, Minor; JG, Minor; MARIA MUNGUIA; KG, Minor,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DAVID L. MOORE, in his official and individual capacity,

Defendant – Appellee,

and

CHARLIE T. DEANE, in his official capacity; LUIS POTES, in his official and individual capacity; ADAM HURLEY, in his official and individual capacity; DOES 1-6, in their official and individual capacities; ROES 1-5, in their official and individual capacities; PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY; MATTHEW CAPLAN, in his official and individual capacity; KAREN MUELHAUSER, in her official and individual capacity; DOES 1-5, in their official and individual capacities,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-01313-JCC-TRJ) Submitted: March 21, 2013 Decided: April 2, 2013

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Esperanza Guerrero, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Notz, Mary Alice Rowan, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Prince William, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Esperanza Guerrero appeals the district court’s

summary judgment order disposing of all but one of her various

claims, and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence

supporting the jury’s verdict for Defendant Moore on that

remaining claim. As for the claims disposed of on summary

judgment, this court reviews the district court’s summary

judgment order de novo, viewing the facts and reasonable

inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

Bonds v. Leavitt, 629 F.3d 369, 380 (4th Cir. 2011). Summary

judgment is appropriate where the movant shows that there is no

genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). We have

reviewed the record and find no error on the part of the

district court. As for the claim decided by the jury, this

court is without authority to review the sufficiency of the

evidence supporting the jury’s verdict, in light of Guerrero’s

failure to raise an appropriate post-verdict motion in the

district court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, 59. Unitherm

Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394, 404

(2006); A Helping Hand, LLC v. Balt. Cnty., 515 F.3d 356, 369-70

(4th Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, and affirm both the district court’s order and the

3 jury’s verdict. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED