UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2349
TORINA A. COLLIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:06-cv-02451-PJM)
Submitted: March 23, 2011 Decided: March 31, 2011
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Torina A. Collis, Appellant Pro Se. Elena D. Marcuss,
MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Torina A. Collis appeals from the district court’s
final judgment following her unsuccessful trial in which she
alleged employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. She raises numerous
issues on appeal. For the reasons that follow we affirm.
First, we find no error in the district court’s
dismissal of Collis’ trial attorney Morris Fischer. We note
that Fischer was the fourth attorney hired by Collis and that
Collis had ample time prior to trial to hire another attorney.
Second, we find that Collis has failed to show
entitlement to a new trial based on her allegation of juror
misconduct, and we find no abuse of discretion by the district
court regarding the matter. See United States v. Basham, 561
F.3d 302, 319 (4th Cir. 2009) (providing review standard for new
trial), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3353 (2010); United States v.
Cheek, 94 F.3d 136, 140 (4th Cir. 1996) (noting that decision of
whether improper contact or communication compromised the
impartiality of the jury is reviewed for a “somewhat narrowed”
abuse of discretion).
Third, the jury instruction to which Collis objects is
irrelevant, as the jury did not consider the instruction.
Fourth, we do not find that the district court abused its
2
discretion in limiting Collis to thirteen trial witnesses.
United States v. Hassan El, 5 F.3d 726, 731 (4th Cir. 1993).
Finally, we decline to reverse the district court, as
sought by Collis in her fifth issue, and we find no error in the
district court’s ruling regarding Collis’ attempt to utilize the
judicial notice provision of Fed. R. Evid. 201. See generally
Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d 1236, 1239-40 (4th Cir.
1989) (discussing Rule 201(b)(2) regarding judicially noticed
facts).
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