Singleton v. Thompson

Fifth Circuit

Singleton v. Thompson

294 F. App'x 943

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 3, 2008

Docket06-41575

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 294 F. App'x 943 (Singleton v. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Singleton v. Thompson, 294 F. App'x 943 (5th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Nathaniel Keith Singleton, a former Texas prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against various prison officials, including Correctional Officer Anthony Thompson. Singleton appeals the jury verdict in favor of Thompson in these civil proceedings. His motion for leave to file an out-of-time reply brief is granted.

Singleton maintains that the magistrate judge erroneously admitted the expert testimony of Dr. Bruce Smith, in violation of Fed.R.Evid. 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). Because Singleton did not challenge this testimony below, we review for plain error. See Foradori v. Harris, 523 F.3d 477, 507-08 & n. 26 (5th Cir.2008). Although Singleton notes that Smith did not review the actual X-rays of his injuries, he has pointed to no discrepancies between the X-rays and the radiology reports. He also has not established that Smith’s testimony was not based on accepted reasoning and methodology. See Rule 702. Singleton has not established that the admission of Smith’s testimony constituted an error plain on the face of the record that affected his substantial rights. See Robertson v. Plano City of Texas, 70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir.1995).

Singleton also contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury *945 verdict and that the magistrate judge erred in accepting a jury verdict contrary to the law and the evidence presented. However, Singleton’s failure to file a motion for a new trial or for judgment as a matter of law precludes review of his sufficiency claim. See Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Ecknch, Inc., 546 U.S. 394, 398-404, 126 S.Ct. 980, 163 L.Ed.2d 974 (2006). The judgment of the district court is thus affirmed.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

PER CURIAM: *

Nathaniel Keith Singleton, a former Texas prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against various prison officials, including Correctional Officer Anthony Thompson. Singleton appeals the jury verdict in favor of Thompson in these civil proceedings. His motion for leave to file an out-of-time reply brief is granted.

Singleton maintains that the magistrate judge erroneously admitted the expert testimony of Dr. Bruce Smith, in violation of Fed.R.Evid. 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). Because Singleton did not challenge this testimony below, we review for plain error. See Foradori v. Harris, 523 F.3d 477, 507-08 & n. 26 (5th Cir.2008). Although Singleton notes that Smith did not review the actual X-rays of his injuries, he has pointed to no discrepancies between the X-rays and the radiology reports. He also has not established that Smith’s testimony was not based on accepted reasoning and methodology. See Rule 702. Singleton has not established that the admission of Smith’s testimony constituted an error plain on the face of the record that affected his substantial rights. See Robertson v. Plano City of Texas, 70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir.1995).

Singleton also contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury *945 verdict and that the magistrate judge erred in accepting a jury verdict contrary to the law and the evidence presented. However, Singleton’s failure to file a motion for a new trial or for judgment as a matter of law precludes review of his sufficiency claim. See Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Ecknch, Inc., 546 U.S. 394, 398-404, 126 S.Ct. 980, 163 L.Ed.2d 974 (2006). The judgment of the district court is thus affirmed.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 F. App'x 943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singleton-v-thompson-ca5-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack