Sumpter v. Ham ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
MITCHELL LEE SUMPTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
B. HAM, Officer; ROGER, Sargeant;
No. 99-7068
KEENDY, Lieutenant; FNU ANDERSON,
Officer; HICE, Officer; DIXSON,
Officer; WALTERS, Officer; STATEN,
Officer; DOZIER, Officer,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-98-320-2-17AJ)
Submitted: February 24, 2000
Decided: March 3, 2000
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Mitchell Lee Sumpter, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Thomas King,
WILLCOX, BUYCK & WILLIAMS, P.A., Florence, South Carolina,
for Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Mitchell Lee Sumpter appeals from the district court's order enter-
ing judgment on the jury verdict in favor of Defendants in his 42
U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) action in which he alleged that
Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by using a stun
baton gun on him. We affirm.
We find no abuse of discretion in the district court's evidentiary
rulings. See United States v. Francisco, 35 F.3d 116, 118 (4th Cir.
1994). Major Stuckey's testimony from a previous trial was properly
excluded because Sumpter failed to show that Stuckey was unavail-
able to testify in this trial and because the evidence was duplicative.
See Fed. R. Evid. 403, 804(a), (b)(1). The statement in Sumpter's
medical records that he informed a social worker that he studied the
prison's policies in order to manipulate the system was properly
admitted as an admission by a party, see Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2), and
the records were admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 803(6).
Any error in the court's refusal to allow Sumpter to review and
admit into evidence the prison's policy concerning use of the stun gun
was harmless because Sumpter presented the substance of the policy
through his witnesses. See United States v. Morison, 844 F.2d 1057,
1078 (4th Cir. 1988); see also Belcher v. Oliver , 898 F.2d 32, 36 (4th
Cir. 1990) (violation of prison regulation not a constitutional viola-
tion). Lastly, we find no abuse of discretion in the court's admission
of the Defendants' demonstration of the use of a stun gun on an offi-
cer for the limited purpose of showing how the baton is used and its
effects. See United States v. Masters, 622 F.2d 83, 87 (4th Cir. 1980).
Sumpter also challenges the district court's ruling that he could not
have street clothes mailed to him at the courthouse. However, because
the court provided that Sumpter could have clothes brought to the
2
courthouse there was no constitutional violation. See Estelle v.
Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 512-13 (1976) (prisoner may not be
compelled to wear prison attire). Also, because his claim was that the
Defendants, correctional officers, utilized excessive force against him,
he cannot show prejudice from the jury seeing him in prison garb. See
id. at 506-07 ("No prejudice can result from seeing that which is
already known.") (internal quotations omitted).
Finding no error in the district court's evidentiary rulings, or the
fact that Sumpter appeared at trial in prison attire, we affirm the dis-
trict 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