Dion Taylor v. John Ozmint , 510 F. App'x 269 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7217
DION ORLANDO TAYLOR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN OZMINT, Director, official and individual capacity;
JOHN MITCHELL, or J., Lieutenant, individual capacity;
BERNARD MCKIE, Warden, official and individual capacity;
JEROME GIBSON,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (0:10-cv-00050-HMH)
Submitted: January 31, 2013 Decided: February 19, 2013
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dion Orlando Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Bass Lohr, William
T. Young, III, HOWELL, GIBSON & HUGHES, PA, Beaufort, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dion Orlando Taylor appeals the jury verdict in favor
of the defendants on his claims asserting violations of his
Eighth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006). Finding
no error, we affirm.
Considering first Taylor’s claims of numerous errors
in the admission and exclusion of evidence during his trial, we
“review a trial court’s rulings on the admissibility of evidence
for abuse of discretion, and . . . will only overturn an
evidentiary ruling that is arbitrary and irrational.” United
States v. Cole, 631 F.3d 146, 153 (4th Cir. 2011). After
careful review of the record, we conclude that Taylor has failed
to establish that the district court abused its discretion.
Further, contrary to Taylor’s contention, the
evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the prevailing
parties below, amply supported the jury’s verdict on Taylor’s
claims of excessive force and deliberate indifference. King v.
McMillan, 594 F.3d 301, 312 (4th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we
find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of
Taylor’s motion for a new trial. See Dennis v. Columbia
Colleton Med. Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d 639, 650 (4th Cir. 2001)
(denial of a motion for a new trial reviewed for clear abuse of
discretion).
2
Finally, the remainder of the issues Taylor raises on
appeal were not asserted in the district court. Therefore, they
are not properly preserved for our consideration on
appeal. Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment below. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3