Isaiah Bongam v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1759
ISAIAH BONGAM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-02-3367-AW)
Submitted: January 31, 2005 Decided: February 28, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sean D. Hummel, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. William B.
Tiller, BEATYTILLER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Isaiah Bongam appeals the district court’s order granting
judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a), in favor
of Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”). We have reviewed the
parties’ briefs and the joint appendix and find no reversible
error. We agree with Bongam that his testimony was subject to more
than one interpretation and, therefore, that judgment as a matter
of law based upon contributory negligence was not
appropriate. Ocheltree v. Scollon Prods., Inc., 335 F.3d 325, 331
(4th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Judgment as a matter of law is proper
only if ‘there can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the
verdict.’”) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
250 (1986)), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1177 (2004). We nevertheless
affirm the district court’s judgment on alternative grounds. See
United States v. Smith, __ F.3d __, 2005 WL 171374, at *2 (4th Cir.
Jan. 27, 2005) (“We are not limited to evaluation of the grounds
offered by the district court to support its decision, but may
affirm on any grounds apparent from the record.”).
Our review of the trial testimony leads us to conclude
that, had the jury considered the testimony relating to Bongam’s
claim of negligence, the jury could have drawn only one reasonable
conclusion--that Bongam failed to establish a prima facie case of
negligence. See Horridge v. St. Mary’s County Dep’t of Soc.
Servs., 854 A.2d 1232, 1238 (Md. 2004) (discussing prima facie

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
case); Moulden v. Greenbelt Consumer Servs., Inc., 210 A.2d 724,
725-26 (Md. 1965). Accordingly, we affirm. 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 of 3 --