UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2373
ESPERANZA GUERRERO,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
and
JUAN GUERRERO; JJG, Minor; MG, Minor; JG, Minor; MARIA
MUNGUIA; KG, Minor,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DAVID L. MOORE, in his official and individual capacity,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
CHARLIE T. DEANE, in his official capacity; LUIS POTES, in
his official and individual capacity; ADAM HURLEY, in his
official and individual capacity; DOES 1-6, in their
official and individual capacities; ROES 1-5, in their
official and individual capacities; PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY
POLICE DEPARTMENT; PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY; MATTHEW CAPLAN, in
his official and individual capacity; KAREN MUELHAUSER, in
her official and individual capacity; DOES 1-5, in their
official and individual capacities,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:09-cv-01313-JCC-TRJ)
Submitted: March 21, 2013 Decided: April 2, 2013
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Esperanza Guerrero, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Notz, Mary Alice
Rowan, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Prince William, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Esperanza Guerrero appeals the district court’s
summary judgment order disposing of all but one of her various
claims, and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting the jury’s verdict for Defendant Moore on that
remaining claim. As for the claims disposed of on summary
judgment, this court reviews the district court’s summary
judgment order de novo, viewing the facts and reasonable
inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Bonds v. Leavitt, 629 F.3d 369, 380 (4th Cir. 2011). Summary
judgment is appropriate where the movant shows that there is no
genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). We have
reviewed the record and find no error on the part of the
district court. As for the claim decided by the jury, this
court is without authority to review the sufficiency of the
evidence supporting the jury’s verdict, in light of Guerrero’s
failure to raise an appropriate post-verdict motion in the
district court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, 59. Unitherm
Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394, 404
(2006); A Helping Hand, LLC v. Balt. Cnty., 515 F.3d 356, 369-70
(4th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, and affirm both the district court’s order and the
3
jury’s verdict. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4