Dmitry Pronin v. Troy Johnson ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 20-6124
    DMITRY PRONIN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    LIEUTENANT TROY JOHNSON; OFFICER FLOURNOY; OFFICER
    MIDDLEBROOK; OFFICER WILSON; OFFICER CRAWFORD; KENNETH
    ATKINSON;   DANIEL      FALLEN; REX     BLOCKER;    LOUISA
    FUERTES-RASARIO; SANDRA K. LATHROP; JAKE BURKETT; BRANDON
    BURKETT; JOHN BRYANT; PATINA WALTON-GRIER; HENRI WALL;
    EDWARD HAMPTON; WILLIAM JOHNSON; LIEUTENANT EDA
    OLIVERA-NEGRON, Operations,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
    Orangeburg. David C. Norton, District Judge. (5:12-cv-03416-DCN)
    Submitted: January 21, 2021                                       Decided: February 2, 2021
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Dmitry Pronin, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Dmitry Pronin appeals from the district court’s orders granting judgment as a matter
    of law to Defendant Jake Burkett and entering judgment pursuant to the jury verdict in
    favor of Defendant Troy Johnson. On appeal, Pronin asserts that the district court erred in
    denying his motion to reopen evidence in his direct case due to the alleged refusal of his
    attorneys to seek admission of certain statements by Burkett and his brother. However,
    attorney error is not a “legitimate justification” for failing to present the evidence sooner,
    and thus, the district court was “well within its discretion in refusing to consider” Burkett’s
    evidence. See Cray Comm. v. Novatel Comp. Sys., 
    33 F.3d 390
    , 395 (4th Cir. 1994) (noting
    that the argument that a lawyer’s mistake imposes an “unjust penalty” on an innocent client
    is “wholly inconsistent with our system of representative litigation”). Accordingly, 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 this court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-6124

Filed Date: 2/2/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 2/2/2021