Michael Perry v. N. Beaver

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6137 Doc: 20 Filed: 12/01/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-6137 MICHAEL B. PERRY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. N. BEAVER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:20-ct-03041-D) Submitted: September 18, 2025 Decided: December 1, 2025 Before THACKER, HARRIS, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael B. Perry, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6137 Doc: 20 Filed: 12/01/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Michael B. Perry appeals from the district court’s judgment entered after the jury’s verdict in his civil action. Liberally construing Perry’s informal brief, Perry argues that the trial evidence was insufficient to support the verdict for the defendant. Because Perry did not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 in the district court, however, he may not now raise this argument on appeal. See Belk, Inc. v. Meyer Corp., U.S., 679 F.3d 146, 154 (4th Cir. 2012) (“To challenge the sufficiency of the evidence in a civil jury trial on appeal, a party must comply with [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 50.”). Perry did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence either before the case was submitted to the jury or after the return of the verdict and entry of judgment and has therefore forfeited such a challenge on appeal. Id.; see also Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394, 404 (2006) (holding that a party’s “failure to comply with Rule 50(b) forecloses its challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence”). * 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * Even if Perry could pursue his sufficiency of the evidence argument on appeal, we would reject it based on our review of the trial evidence. See Alexander v. Connor, 105 F.4th 174, 182 (4th Cir. 2024) (describing elements of Eighth Amendment excessive force claim); Wiener v. AXA Equitable Life Ins., 58 F.4th 774, 784 (4th Cir. 2023) (explaining standard of review for preserved challenge to sufficiency of evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b)). 2