Sensabaugh v. Joy Mining Machinery

Fourth Circuit

Sensabaugh v. Joy Mining Machinery

20 F. App'x 177

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 10, 2001

Docket00-2489

StatusUnpublished

This text of 20 F. App'x 177 (Sensabaugh v. Joy Mining Machinery) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sensabaugh v. Joy Mining Machinery, 20 F. App'x 177 (4th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Glenwood Sensabaugh appeals the jury verdict finding in favor of his employer in this civil action alleging employment discrimination based upon race. Sensabaugh argues that the district court’s supplemental instruction to the jury was both confusing and an incorrect statement of the law. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix, and the supplemental joint appendix and find no error in the court’s supplemental instruction to the jury in response to its second question. Taylor v. Virginia Union Univ., 193 F.3d 219, 240 (4th Cir.1999) (reviewing district court’s response to jury question involves “ ‘ask[ing] whether the court’s answer was reasonably responsive to the jury’s question and whether the original and supplemental instructions as a whole allowed the jury to understand the issue presented to it’ ”) (quoting United States v. Stevens, 38 F.3d 167, 170 (5th Cir.1994)), cert, denied, 528 U.S. 1189, 120 S.Ct. 1243, 146 L.Ed.2d 101 (2000). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Sensabaugh v. Joy Mining Machinery, No. CA-97-112 B (W.D.Va. Nov. 14, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM.

Glenwood Sensabaugh appeals the jury verdict finding in favor of his employer in this civil action alleging employment discrimination based upon race. Sensabaugh argues that the district court’s supplemental instruction to the jury was both confusing and an incorrect statement of the law. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix, and the supplemental joint appendix and find no error in the court’s supplemental instruction to the jury in response to its second question. Taylor v. Virginia Union Univ., 193 F.3d 219, 240 (4th Cir.1999) (reviewing district court’s response to jury question involves “ ‘ask[ing] whether the court’s answer was reasonably responsive to the jury’s question and whether the original and supplemental instructions as a whole allowed the jury to understand the issue presented to it’ ”) (quoting United States v. Stevens, 38 F.3d 167, 170 (5th Cir.1994)), cert, denied, 528 U.S. 1189, 120 S.Ct. 1243, 146 L.Ed.2d 101 (2000). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Sensabaugh v. Joy Mining Machinery, No. CA-97-112 B (W.D.Va. Nov. 14, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 F. App'x 177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sensabaugh-v-joy-mining-machinery-ca4-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack