Riggs v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2173
DAVID RIGGS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WAL-MART STORES, INCORPORATED, a Delaware
corporation,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
OVERHEAD DOOR COMPANY OF BALTIMORE,
INCORPORATED, a Maryland corporation;
WASHINGTON OVERHEAD DOOR, INCORPORATED, d/b/a
Overhead Door Company of Washington, DC, a
Maryland corporation; OVERHEAD DOOR OPENERS,
INCORPORATED, a Maryland corporation; BESAM
AUTOMATED ENTRANCE SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, a
Connecticut corporation; UNITED DOMINION
INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED, d/b/a TKO Dock
Doors, a Delaware corporation; HPD
INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED, d/b/a TKO Dock
Doors, a Wisconsin corporation; SPX
CORPORATION, d/b/a TKO DockDoors, a Delaware
corporation,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-04-700-JKS)
Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 1, 2005
Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Riggs, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Redmond Dunn, DECARO,
DORAN, SICILIANO, GALLAGHER & DEBLASIS, LLP, Lanham, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
David Riggs appeals from the district court’s judgment in
his civil negligence suit, entered after a jury verdict for
Wal-Mart Stores, Incorporated. On appeal, Riggs raises only one
issue. He asserts that his attorney failed to subpoena key
witnesses or present other evidence on his behalf. Because Riggs
is bound by the acts of his attorney, see Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,
370 U.S. 626, 633-34 (1962), his remedy lies in a malpractice suit,
not in an appeal from the district court’s judgment. Id. at 634
n.10; see also Universal Film Exchs., Inc. v. Lust, 479 F.2d 573,
576-77 (4th Cir. 1973) (finding grossly negligent behavior by
attorney did not constitute exceptional circumstances meriting
reconsideration). Thus, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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 -