James Fudge v. J T Banks, et al, No. 09-1312 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Prisoner case - prisoner civil rights. Defendants' jury verdict affirmed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 09-1312 ___________ James Charles Fudge, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. J. T. Banks, Assistant Warden, Varner * Super Max, ADC; R. Evans, Lt., Varner * Super Max, ADC; E. Hobbs, Lt., * Arkansas Department of Corrections; * [UNPUBLISHED] T. Nelson-Courtney, Correctional * Officer, Varner Super Max, ADC; * R. McCarrell, originally sued as * K. McCarrell, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: February 26, 2010 Filed: March 3, 2010 ___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Arkansas inmate James Fudge appeals from the judgment of the District Court1 entered in accordance with a jury verdict in favor of defendants on Fudge's excessiveforce claims. Upon careful review, we find no basis for reversal. Specifically, we find no merit to Fudge s arguments on appeal, all of which relate to the District Court s handling of voir dire and evidentiary matters during trial. See Nicklasson v. Roper, 491 F.3d 830, 835 (8th Cir. 2007) ("The conduct of voir dire is generally left to the trial court s sound discretion."), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2052 (2008); Cavataio v. City of Bella Villa, 570 F.3d 1015, 1020 (8th Cir. 2009) (noting that this Court will reverse on the basis of an erroneous evidentiary ruling only if that ruling is a clear and prejudicial abuse of the district court's broad discretion); EEOC v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543, 551 (8th Cir. 1998) ("A timely and specific objection is necessary for a successful evidentiary appeal in the absence of plain error."). Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -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.
