Krystal Delima v. Walmart Stores Arkansas, LLC

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-1674

___________________________

Krystal Megan Delima

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Walmart Stores Arkansas, LLC

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville

____________

Submitted: February 3, 2020 Filed: February 6, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Krystal Delima appeals after the jury returned an adverse verdict in her pro se civil action and the district court1 denied her motion for a new trial. After careful

1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

review of the record and consideration of the issues properly before us, we find no basis for reversal.2 We conclude that there is no merit to Delima’s arguments challenging the district court’s rulings concerning a surveillance video tape produced during pretrial discovery, see Sheets v. Butera, 389 F.3d 772, 780 (8th Cir. 2004) (rulings on discovery matters are reviewed for gross abuse of discretion), the admissibility of an exhibit at trial, see Cavataio v. City of Bella Villa, 570 F.3d 1015, 1020 (8th Cir. 2009) (district court has broad discretion in its evidentiary rulings at trial), and the jury instructions, see Otting v. J.C. Penney Co., 223 F.3d 704, 712-13 (8th Cir.2000) (refusal to submit jury instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

2 We conclude the district court’s ruling on Delima’s motion for a new trial is not properly before us because she did not file a new or amended notice of appeal after the district court denied that motion. See Miles v. GMC, 262 F.3d 720, 722-23 (8th Cir. 2001). We also decline to consider the arguments she raised for the first time on appeal. See Mau v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 910 F.3d. 388, 391 (8th Cir. 2018).