James Fudge v. J T Banks

Eighth Circuit

James Fudge v. J T Banks

366 F. App'x 692

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 3, 2010

Docket09-1312

StatusUnpublished

This text of 366 F. App'x 692 (James Fudge v. J T Banks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James Fudge v. J T Banks, 366 F. App'x 692 (8th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate James Fudge appeals from the judgment of the District Court 1 entered in accordance with a jury verdict in favor of defendants on Fudge’s excessive-force claims. Upon careful review, we find no basis for reversal. Specifically, we find no merit to Fudge’s arguments on appeal, all of which relate to the District Court’s handling of voir dire and evidentia-ry matters during trial. See Nicklasson v. Roper, 491 F.3d 830, 835 (8th Cir.2007) (“The conduct of voir dire is generally left to the trial court’s sound discretion.”), cert, denied, 553 U.S. 1007, 128 S.Ct. 2052, 170 L.Ed.2d 797 (2008); Cavataio v. City of Bella Villa, 570 F.3d 1015, 1020 (8th Cir. 2009) (noting that this Court will reverse on the basis of an erroneous evidentiary ruling only if that ruling is a clear and prejudicial abuse of the district court’s broad discretion); EEOC v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543, 551 (8th Cir.1998) (“A timely and specific objection is necessary for a successful evidentiary appeal in the absence of plain error.”).

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate James Fudge appeals from the judgment of the District Court 1 entered in accordance with a jury verdict in favor of defendants on Fudge’s excessive-force claims. Upon careful review, we find no basis for reversal. Specifically, we find no merit to Fudge’s arguments on appeal, all of which relate to the District Court’s handling of voir dire and evidentia-ry matters during trial. See Nicklasson v. Roper, 491 F.3d 830, 835 (8th Cir.2007) (“The conduct of voir dire is generally left to the trial court’s sound discretion.”), cert, denied, 553 U.S. 1007, 128 S.Ct. 2052, 170 L.Ed.2d 797 (2008); Cavataio v. City of Bella Villa, 570 F.3d 1015, 1020 (8th Cir. 2009) (noting that this Court will reverse on the basis of an erroneous evidentiary ruling only if that ruling is a clear and prejudicial abuse of the district court’s broad discretion); EEOC v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543, 551 (8th Cir.1998) (“A timely and specific objection is necessary for a successful evidentiary appeal in the absence of plain error.”).

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

366 F. App'x 692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-fudge-v-j-t-banks-ca8-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack