Elsie M. Mayard v. Anthony Tallarico, No. 12-3274 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Civil rights. District court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's Rule 59 motion; judgment affirmed. [ July 18, 2013
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-3274 ___________________________ Elsie M. Mayard lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Anthony Tallarico; Carlos Wong; Chad Slagter; City of St. Paul lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis ____________ Submitted: July 17, 2013 Filed: July 19, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Elsie M. Mayard appeals following the district court s1 adverse entry of judgment on a jury verdict in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, and the court s subsequent 1 The Honorable Arthur J. Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). denial of her motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. Having reviewed the arguments raised in the Rule 59 motion, to the extent possible without a transcript of the three-day jury trial, this court finds no clear abuse of discretion in the district court s denial of the Rule 59 motion. See Children s Broadcasting Corp. v. Walt Disney Co., 357 F.3d 860, 866-67 (8th Cir. 2004); Schmid v. United Bhd. of Carpenters and Joiners of Am., 827 F.2d 384, 385-86 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam).2 And having carefully reviewed the arguments for reversal raised in Mayard s brief, this court finds no other reversible error in these proceedings. This court affirms. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 2 In her brief, Mayard mentions or alludes to certain other claims, but she stipulated to the dismissal of those claims before trial, so they will not be considered. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
