UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1835
HOMI N. AMIRMOKRI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Energy,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-02-3446-8-AW)
Submitted: December 23, 2004 Decided: January 14, 2005
Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Homi N. Amirmokri, Appellant Pro Se. Tarra R. DeShields-Minnis,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Homi N. Amirmokri appeals from the final judgment entered
in favor of the defendant following a jury trial on his Title VII*
claims of national origin discrimination and retaliation. Finding
no error, we affirm.
On appeal, Amirmokri first argues that the district court
issued an erroneous jury instruction at the close of trial. This
court reviews a district court’s decision of whether to give a jury
instruction and the content of an instruction for abuse of
discretion. See United States v. Abbas, 74 F.3d 506, 513 (4th Cir.
1996). When jury instructions are challenged on appeal, the issue
is whether, taken as a whole, the instructions fairly stated the
controlling law. United States v. Cobb, 905 F.2d 784, 788-89 (4th
Cir. 1990). “Even if instructions are flawed, there can be no
reversal unless the error seriously prejudiced the challenging
party’s case.” S. Atl. Ltd. P’ship of Tenn. v. Riese, 284 F.3d
518, 530 (4th Cir. 2002). Guided by these principles, we have
reviewed the jury instruction in its entirety and find no
reversible error. See Mullen v. Princess Anne Volunteer Fire Co.,
Inc., 853 F.2d 1130, 1137 (4th Cir. 1988).
Amirmokri next argues that the district court erred by
allowing into evidence documents that were produced by the
*
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
to 2000e-17 (2000).
- 2 -
defendant after the close of discovery and by refusing to admit
expert testimony from his treating physician. This court affords
substantial discretion to a district court in managing discovery
and reviews discovery rulings only for abuse of that discretion.
U.S. ex rel. Becker v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 305 F.3d
284, 290 (4th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1012 (2003).
Decisions regarding the admission of evidence are also reviewed for
abuse of discretion. See United States v. Stitt, 250 F.3d 878, 888
(4th Cir. 2001). Moreover, only if the district court’s exclusion
affected the substantial rights of the complaining party should its
evidentiary ruling be overturned. See Mullen, 853 F.2d at 1135.
We have reviewed Amirmokri’s submission on these issues and find no
abuse of discretion.
Finally, Amirmokri argues that the district court erred
by impaneling a particular juror without sufficient questioning.
District courts have “wide discretion” in conducting the jury
selection process. See Person v. Miller, 854 F.2d 656, 665 (4th
Cir. 1988). Having reviewed the transcript of voir dire in the
instant case, we find no abuse of that discretion.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the
district court. 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 -