Danny Hooper v. Wesley Jamison, No. 15-1436 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam. Before Smith, Colloton, and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - civil rights. District court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for new trial following jury verdict, as Hooper did not explain how evidence was prejudicial or how district court abused its discretion in allowing evidence.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1436 ___________________________ Danny Lee Hooper lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Wesley Jamison, Sergeant, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Marion Smith, Sergeant, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees Wallace McNary, Lieutenant, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Brenda Perry, Administration, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena ____________ Submitted: October 23, 2015 Filed: November 9, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Following an adverse jury verdict on Arkansas inmate Danny Hooper’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action involving excessive-force and failure-to-intervene claims against two prison officials, Hooper appeals the district court’s1 order denying his motion for a new trial. Hooper’s arguments on appeal involve the allegedly erroneous admission of testimony, but Hooper has not explained why this evidence was prejudicial, or how the district court abused its discretion in allowing the evidence or in denying his motion for a new trial. See Burris v. Gulf Underwriters Ins. Co., 787 F.3d 875, 878, 880 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review); see also Kelly v. Omaha Housing Authority, 721 F.3d 560, 562 (8th Cir. 2013) (appellant must furnish reviewing court with all parts of proceedings below necessary for determination of validity of any claimed error), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1010 (2014). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, 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.
