Deborth Haziz v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Department of Justice

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2343
DEBORTH HAZIZ,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Department of
Justice,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:05-cv-00574-H)
Submitted: June 3, 2011 Decided: June 16, 2011
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Deborth Haziz, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Sharon
Coull Wilson, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Deborth Haziz brought suit against the Federal Bureau
of Prisons (“BOP”) alleging employment discrimination in
violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 701-796l (West 2008 & Supp. 2010), and
retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2003
& Supp. 2010). Haziz alleged that she suffered an on-the-job
injury resulting in a disability and that the BOP denied her
reasonable accommodation and terminated her, both in retaliation
for filing an EEO claim and because of her disability. Haziz’s
suit was tried before a jury and the jury returned a verdict for
the BOP. We affirm.
On appeal, Haziz first argues that the district court
erred when it declined her request to be recalled to the stand
after she had twice testified. “A district court has the
discretion to place reasonable limits on the presentation of
evidence.” United States v. Ford
Haziz next alleges that the district court committed
several errors in instructing the jury and argues that she
should be granted a new trial. “District courts are necessarily
, 88 F.3d 1350, 1362
(4th Cir. 1996). Here, in denying Haziz’s request to take the
stand for a third time, the district court acted well within the
bounds of its discretion.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
vested with a great deal of discretion in constructing the
specific form and content of jury instructions.” Hardin v. Ski
Venture, Inc., 50 F.3d 1291, 1293 (4th Cir. 1995). In
determining whether the district court erred in instructing the
jury, we review the district court’s jury instructions as a
whole and in the context of the entire charge. Rowland v. Am.
Gen. Fin., Inc., 340 F.3d 187, 191 (4th Cir. 2003).
“Instructions will be considered adequate if construed as a
whole, and in light of the whole record, they adequately inform
the jury of the controlling legal principles without misleading
or confusing the jury to the prejudice of the objecting party.”
Id.
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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
(internal quotation marks omitted) (alterations omitted).
Because Haziz did not preserve these claims in the district
court, we review them for plain error. Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d).
We find none. The district court’s instructions adequately set
forth the relevant law.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --