UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 95-30617
_______________________
NADELLE R. GRANTHAM,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RANDY MOFFETT, Dr, individually and in his official capacity
of Dean of the College of Education, Southeastern Louisiana
University; REBECCA DAY, Dr, individually and in her official
capacity as Chair of the Committee on Selective Admission
and Retention in Teacher Education (SARTE) at Southeastern
Louisiana University; MARTHA HEAD, Dr, individually and
in her official capacity as Head of the Department of
Teacher Education of Southeastern Louisiana University;
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES,
Defendants-Appellants,
and
SOUTHEASTERN LOUISIANA UNIVERSITY; THE BOARD OF ELEMENTARY AND
SECONDARY EDUCATION; LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
Defendants.
_______________________
No. 96-30109
_______________________
NADELLE R. GRANTHAM,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RANDY MOFFETT, Dr, individually and in his official capacity
as Dean of the College of Education, Southeastern Louisiana
University; REBECCA DAY, Dr, individually and in her official
capacity as Chair of the Committee on Selective Admission
and Retention in Teacher Education (SARTE) at Southeastern
Louisiana University; MARTHA HEAD, Dr, individually and
in her official capacity as Head of the Department of Teacher
Education of Southeastern Louisiana University;
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES,
Defendants-Appellants,
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(CA-93-4007-N-3)
_________________________________________________________________
October 23, 1996
Before WISDOM, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The court has carefully considered this appeal in light
of the briefs, arguments of counsel and pertinent portions of the
record. The scope of our appellate review is narrow because
appellants failed to object to the introduction of expert
testimony, failed to move for judgment as a matter of law or to
object to the jury charge, and failed to move for a new trial. The
issues in this case that appellants most strongly contest; whether
Ms. Grantham was qualified to seek an elementary education degree
and whether she was discriminated against, were issues of fact.
McGregor v. Louisiana Board of Supervisors, 3 F.3d 850 (5th Cir.
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
2
1993). The result of appellants’ procedural defaults is that we
will affirm the jury verdict if there is any evidence to support
it. Steverson v. Goldstein, 24 F.3d 666, 669 (5th Cir. 1994).
Based on this narrow standard of review, we conclude that there was
some evidence to support the jury’s finding that Southeastern
Louisiana University discriminated against Ms. Grantham based on
her disability, and further, that there was some evidence to
support the amount of damages awarded by the jury. Appellants’
complaint that the trial court did not properly impanel the jury is
frivolous.
With regard to the award of attorneys’ fees, although it
seems high, we are hard put to conclude that it represented an
abuse of discretion. The magistrate judge applied the proper legal
standards, requested additional supporting documentation for
pretrial work by the attorneys where he thought appropriate, and
disallowed fees for duplicative work. Whether this panel would
have awarded the same amount of fees is irrelevant. The magistrate
judge committed no legal error in his analysis nor did he arrive at
an overall amount outside the wide ambit of his discretion.
The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.
3