Unpublished Dispositiondottie Webster and Lee Webster, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Richard H. Middleton, Jr. et al., Defendants-appellees, 838 F.2d 472 (6th Cir. 1988)
Annotate this CaseBefore BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr., RALPH B. GUY, Jr., and BOGGS, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the record and briefs, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not necessary. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).
These pro se plaintiffs appeal the district court's judgment denying their motion for new trial.
Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See Bruner v. Dunaway, 684 F.2d 422, 425 (6th Cir. 1982) (per curiam); TCP Industries, Inc., v. Uniroyal, Inc., 661 F.2d 542, 546 (6th Cir. 1981).
Accordingly, the district court's judgment is hereby affirmed pursuant to Rule 9(b) (5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
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.