Dion Taylor v. John Ozmint, No. 12-7217 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7217 DION ORLANDO TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOHN OZMINT, Director, official and individual JOHN MITCHELL, or J., Lieutenant, individual BERNARD MCKIE, Warden, official and individual JEROME GIBSON, capacity; capacity; capacity; Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:10-cv-00050-HMH) Submitted: January 31, 2013 Decided: February 19, 2013 Before AGEE, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dion Orlando Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Bass Lohr, William T. Young, III, HOWELL, GIBSON & HUGHES, PA, Beaufort, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dion Orlando Taylor appeals the jury verdict in favor of the defendants on his claims asserting violations Eighth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (2006). of his Finding no error, we affirm. Considering first Taylor s claims of numerous errors in the admission and exclusion of evidence during his trial, we review a trial court s rulings on the admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion, and . . . will only overturn United evidentiary ruling that is arbitrary and irrational. States v. Cole, 631 F.3d 146, 153 (4th Cir. an 2011). After careful review of the record, we conclude that Taylor has failed to establish that the district court abused its discretion. Further, contrary to Taylor s contention, the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the prevailing parties below, amply supported the jury s verdict on Taylor s claims of excessive force and deliberate indifference. McMillan, 594 F.3d 301, 312 (4th Cir. 2010). King v. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court s denial of Taylor s motion for a new trial. See Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d 639, 650 (4th Cir. 2001) (denial of a motion for a new trial reviewed for clear abuse of discretion). 2 Finally, the remainder of the issues Taylor raises on appeal were not asserted in the district court. are not appeal. properly for our consideration on Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, dispense preserved Therefore, they with contentions are oral we affirm argument adequately the judgment because presented in the the below. facts We and legal materials before this 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.
