Brown v. Frazier ( 1998 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 96-2157
    CYNTHIA LOROENE BROWN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    PHILLIP FRAZIER,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Beaufort. Robert S. Carr, Magistrate Judge.
    (CA-95-3246-9-19)
    Submitted:   February 3, 1998          Decided:     February 18, 1998
    Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Cynthia Loroene Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Peterson Groves,
    Sr., Randell Croft Stoney, Jr., YOUNG, CLEMENT, RIVERS & TISDALE,
    Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Cynthia   L.   Brown   appeals       the   magistrate   judge's*   orders
    entered in accordance with a jury verdict that she was entitled to
    "zero dollars" in damages in a personal injury action and denying
    her Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a) motion. At trial, the Defendant conceded
    liability but contested Brown's damages. The evidence at trial
    revealed that a car driven by the Defendant and traveling at less
    than five miles per hour rear-ended a truck driven by Brown. Imme-
    diately after the accident, Brown informed the Defendant that she
    was fine; however, several weeks later, she claimed to have sus-
    tained injuries during the accident. After entry of judgment pur-
    suant to the jury's verdict, Brown moved for a new trial. In his
    opinion denying the motion, the magistrate judge characterized as
    "incredible" Brown's testimony concerning her claimed injuries. Our
    review of the record reveals that Brown's proof of damages com-
    pletely failed. We therefore affirm. See Page v. Crisp, 
    399 S.E.2d 161
    , 126 (S.C. Ct. App. 1990). We dispense with oral argument
    because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in
    the material before the court and argument would not significantly
    aid the decisional process.
    *
    The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate
    judge. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (c)(1) (1994).
    2
    AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 96-2157

Filed Date: 2/18/1998

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014