The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1199
SHAWN BROWN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNKNOWN OFFICERS OF THE PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY POLICE
DEPARTMENT; OFFICER ZACHARY O’LARE; OFFICER ANTHONY KING;
SGT. ERIC BROWN,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MD; ROBBIE LOVEDAY; CPL DARIN BUSH;
RODNEY LEWIS; CPL. TYRONE SAVAGE; OFFICER BEAU JARVIS;
OFFICER ANTONIO SAVOY; SGT. VONDELL SMITH,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
Judge. (8:07-cv-02591-DKC)
Submitted: January 30, 2014 Decided: February 4, 2014
Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shawn Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Tonia Yvetta Belton Gofreed,
PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Upper Marlboro, Maryland,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Shawn Brown appeals the district court’s order entered
in accordance with the jury’s verdict finding for the Defendants
in Brown’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action alleging excessive use
of force.
We will reverse a jury’s verdict only when there is a
complete absence of probative facts to support the jury’s
conclusions. Sherrill White Constr., Inc. v. South Carolina
Nat’l Bank, 713 F.2d 1047, 1050 (4th Cir. 1983). The “verdict
must stand if, taking the evidence in the light most favorable
to Defendant, there is ‘any substantial evidence’ to support
it.” Vodrey v. Golden, 864 F.2d 28, 30 n.4 (4th Cir. 1988).
“Substantial evidence” is such evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support the conclusion even if
different conclusions also might be supported by the evidence.
Gibralter Sav. v. LDBrinkman Corp., 860 F.2d 1275, 1297 (5th
Cir. 1988). Finally, in reviewing a jury verdict, we do not
weigh the evidence or review witness credibility. United States
v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989).
The jury heard testimony from a total of thirteen
witnesses over the course of four days. The jury clearly
believed the testimony of the Defendants’ witnesses. Because we
do not weigh the credibility of witnesses, Brown cannot show
that there was a complete absence of probative facts to support
3
the jury’s verdict. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4