Deborth Haziz v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 09-2343 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2343 DEBORTH HAZIZ, Plaintiff Appellant, v. ERIC H. Justice, HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Department of Defendant Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:05-cv-00574-H) Submitted: June 3, 2011 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit Judges, June 16, 2011 and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Deborth Haziz, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Sharon Coull Wilson, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Deborth Haziz brought suit against the Federal Bureau of Prisons ( BOP ) alleging employment discrimination in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 701-796l (West 2008 & Supp. 2010), and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2003 & Supp. 2010). Haziz alleged that she suffered an on-the-job injury resulting in a disability and that the BOP denied her reasonable accommodation and terminated her, both in retaliation for filing an EEO claim and because of her disability. Haziz s suit was tried before a jury and the jury returned a verdict for the BOP. We affirm. On appeal, Haziz first argues that the district court erred when it declined her request to be recalled to the stand after she had twice testified. A district court has the discretion to place reasonable limits on the presentation of evidence. United (4th Cir. 1996). States v. Ford, 88 F.3d 1350, 1362 Here, in denying Haziz s request to take the stand for a third time, the district court acted well within the bounds of its discretion. Haziz next alleges that the district court committed several errors in instructing should be granted a new trial. the jury and argues that she District courts are necessarily 2 vested with a great deal of discretion in constructing specific form and content of jury instructions. Venture, Inc., 50 F.3d 1291, 1293 the Hardin v. Ski (4th Cir. 1995). In determining whether the district court erred in instructing the jury, we review the district court s jury instructions whole and in the context of the entire charge. Gen. Fin., Inc., Instructions will 340 be F.3d considered 187, 191 adequate if as a Rowland v. Am. (4th Cir. 2003). construed as a whole, and in light of the whole record, they adequately inform the jury of the controlling legal principles without misleading or confusing the jury to the prejudice of the objecting party. Id. (internal quotation Because did Haziz not marks omitted) preserve these (alterations claims court, we review them for plain error. We find none. in omitted). the district Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d). The district court s instructions adequately set forth the relevant law. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. 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
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.
