Unpublished Dispositiondottie Webster and Lee Webster, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Richard H. Middleton, Jr.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 Case
Feb. 5, 1988
Before BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr., RALPH B. GUY, Jr., and BOGGS, Circuit Judges.
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.