Shulman v. Cigna Property & Cas ( 1997 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
FRANKLYN C. SHULMAN; ESTATE OF
EMANUEL V. SHULMAN; ERICAL
TRUST,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CIGNA PROPERTY & CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY; THE FEDERAL
No. 96-1697
INSURANCE COMPANY; CHUBB GROUP
OF INSURANCE COMPANIES,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
HUNTINGTON T. BLOCK INSURANCE
AGENCY, INCORPORATED,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge.
(CA-95-660-A)
Submitted: August 28, 1997
Decided: September 12, 1997
Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Franklyn C. Shulman, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Seth Greenhill,
LAW OFFICES OF IRA J. GREENHILL, New York, New York;
Craig David Roswell, NILES, BARTON & WILMER, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Appellants filed this diversity action in district court, seeking to
recover from three insurance companies for the theft of four prints
that Appellant Franklyn C. Shulman asserted were stolen from his
apartment. The case went to a jury, which was unable to reach a ver-
dict. A second jury decided in favor of defendants. Appellants filed
a motion for judgment as a matter of law, Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b), or
for a new trial, Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a). On the district court's denial of
these motions, Appellants noted an appeal.
In reviewing the denial of a Rule 50(b) motion, we must uphold the
district court's ruling unless we find, taking all the evidence in favor
of the prevailing parties and giving them the benefit of all inferences,
that no reasonable juror could have returned the challenged verdict.
Trandes Corp. v. Guy F. Atkinson Co., 996 F.2d 655, 660 (4th Cir.
1993). That standard is not met in this case. Reasonable jurors could
conclude here that Appellants failed to establish Shulman's ownership
and possession of the prints in issue, or that he failed to comply with
the terms of the policies.
We review denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion under an abuse
of discretion standard. EEOC v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 116 F.3d
2
110, 112 (4th Cir. 1997). After considering the issues raised by
Appellants, we find no such abuse in this case.
A review of the transcript convinces us that the district court did
not allow counsel for Appellees to subvert the court's ruling as to
introduction of certain background evidence concerning Shulman, and
that opposing counsel did not engage in a psychological campaign to
prejudice the jury against Shulman. Appellants' complaints against
their own trial counsel do not entitle them to relief on appeal. We find
no merit in any of the other claims raised by Appellants.
Accordingly, we grant Appellees' motions for summary affir-
mance. We deny Appellants' motions for general relief and for sanc-
tions. 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
3