Gerod Stukes v. Fernandez, 913 F.2d 148, 152-53 4th Cir. 1990 . Regarding the district court’s

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1582
GEROD STUKES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CLAUDE STAFFORD, individually,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
JOHN NEWHART, individually,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge.
(CA-99-1105-2)
Submitted: February 28, 2001 Decided: April 24, 2001
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Beverly D. Crawford, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Jeff W.
Rosen, Lisa Ehrich, PENDER & COWARD, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
At the close of Gerod Stukes’ presentation of evidence in his
trial alleging employment discrimination, the district court
granted Claude Stafford’s motion for judgment as a matter of law
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a). Stukes appeals from that final order
and also alleges that the district court erred by refusing to admit
certain exhibits into evidence. For the reasons that follow, we
affirm.
Having reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we do not
find that the district court abused its discretion in its chal-
lenged evidentiary ruling. United States v. Fernandez, 913 F.2d
148, 152-53 (4th Cir. 1990). Regarding the district court’s order
granting Stafford’s Rule 50(a) motion, we have reviewed the record
and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.
Stukes v. Stafford, No. CA-99-1105-2 (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 5, 2000;
entered Apr. 6, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --