Sensabaugh v. Joy Mining Machinery

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-2489
GLENWOOD SENSABAUGH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOY MINING MACHINERY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. Glen M. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CA-97-112-B)
Submitted: August 31, 2001 Decided: October 10, 2001
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carl E. McAfee, MCAFEE LAW FIRM, P.C., Norton, Virginia, for
Appellant. Michael A. Pavlick, KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART L.L.P.,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Glenwood Sensabaugh appeals the jury verdict finding in favor
of his employer in this civil action alleging employment discrim-
ination based upon race. Sensabaugh argues that the district
court’s supplemental instruction to the jury was both confusing and
an incorrect statement of the law. We have reviewed the parties’
briefs, the joint appendix, and the supplemental joint appendix and
find no error in the court’s supplemental instruction to the jury
in response to its second question. Taylor v. Virginia Union
Univ., 193 F.3d 219, 240 (4th Cir. 1999) (reviewing district
court’s response to jury question involves “‘ask[ing] whether the
court’s answer was reasonably responsive to the jury’s question and
whether the original and supplemental instructions as a whole
allowed the jury to understand the issue presented to it’”)
(quoting United States v. Stevens, 38 F.3d 167, 170 (5th Cir.
1994)), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1189 (2000). Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s judgment. Sensabaugh v. Joy Mining Machinery,
No. CA-97-112-B (W.D. Va. Nov. 14, 2000). 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
2