UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2129
CAROLYN V. HENDERSON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CLAIRE’S BOUTIQUES, INCORPORATED,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
CLAIRE’S STORES, INCORPORATED,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge.
(1:08-cv-01317-BEL)
Submitted: March 29, 2011 Decided: April 8, 2011
Before KING, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carolyn V. Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. Patricia M. Thornton,
BACON, THORNTON & PALMER, LLP, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carolyn V. Henderson appeals the district court’s
judgment entered pursuant to the jury’s verdict in favor of the
Appellee in this civil action. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error.
On appeal, Henderson first claims that the district
court erred in sending the defamation claim to the jury, because
it presented an issue of law, and the statements at issue were
defamation per se. Under Maryland law, a plaintiff who is not a
public figure may establish a prima facie case of defamation by
showing: “(1) that the defendant made a defamatory statement to
a third person, (2) that the statement was false, (3) that the
defendant was legally at fault in making the statement, and
(4) that the plaintiff thereby suffered harm.” Independent
Newspapers, Inc. v. Brodie, 966 A.2d 432, 441 (Md. 2009)
(internal quotation marks omitted). “A defamatory statement is
one which tends to expose a person to public scorn, hatred,
contempt or ridicule, thereby discouraging others in the
community from having a good opinion of, or associating with,
that person.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). As a
threshold matter, the trial court must determine whether the
statement is reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning; if
so, then it is for the jury to decide whether the statement is
actually defamatory. Batson v. Shiflett, 602 A.2d 1191, 1210-11
(Md. 1992). In denying summary judgment, the district court
2
concluded that a genuine issue of material fact remained
regarding what statements were made about Henderson, and whether
they were defamatory. The district court correctly left these
issues to the jury. See Shapiro v. Massengill, 661 A.2d 202,
219 (Md. App. 1995).
Henderson next challenges the district court’s grant
of Appellee’s motion for judgment as a matter of law under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 50(b) regarding the issue of punitive damages.
However, as the jury found in favor of Appellee, it was
unnecessary for the court to reach the issue of punitive
damages.
Finally, Henderson challenges a number of the district
court’s evidentiary rulings. This court reviews a trial court’s
rulings on the admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion
and will only overturn an evidentiary ruling that is arbitrary
and irrational. United States v. Cole, 631 F.3d 146, 153 (4th
Cir. 2011). We have reviewed the district court’s challenged
rulings and find no abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, 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