Jeffrey Underwood v. C. Beavers, 711 F. App'x 122

Plaintiff Jeffrey Lynn Underwood, proceeding pro se, sued several defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force, failure to intervene, and state-law assault and battery; some claims/defendants were dismissed before trial.
Case tried to a jury before a magistrate judge with the parties’ consent; jury returned a verdict for defendants Claude Beavers, George Diperna, and W. Barbettol (Trial Defendants).
Underwood moved for appointment of counsel during the case, which the magistrate judge denied; he appealed that denial along with the adverse verdict and evidentiary rulings.
On appeal Underwood argued (1) the court abused its discretion by refusing to appoint counsel, (2) the jury verdict was against the weight/sufficiency of the evidence, and (3) the court improperly excluded certain evidence (surveillance video, photos of his injured arm, and medical records linking infection to later heart issues).
The magistrate ordered disclosure of surveillance tapes, but defendants said cameras were inoperable and none existed; photos of the arm were admitted at trial; the medical records were excluded as irrelevant and hearsay because they did not connect the canine incident to the heart surgery.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed: denial of counsel was not an abuse of discretion; appellant forfeited a sufficiency challenge by failing to file a postverdict Fed. R. Civ. P. 50/59 motion; evidentiary exclusions were proper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of appointment of counsel	Underwood lacked capacity to effectively present his case and needed counsel appointed	No constitutional right to counsel; Underwood could adequately present his claims	Denial not an abuse of discretion; appointment unnecessary (Whisenant standard)
Sufficiency/weight of jury verdict	Verdict against the weight of the evidence; jury erred	No postverdict Rule 50/59 motion was filed to preserve sufficiency challenge	Challenge forfeited on appeal for failure to file postverdict motion; appellate review foreclosed (Ortiz principle)
Exclusion of surveillance video	Court refused to admit surveillance video of incident	Defendants disclosed no tapes existed; cameras inoperable	No error — no tapes existed to admit
Exclusion of photographs of injuries	Photos should have been admitted to show injuries	Trial record shows photos were admitted	No error — photos were admitted
Exclusion of medical records linking infection to heart issues	Medical records show infection two days after bite and link to later heart problems/surgery	Records were hearsay and not relevant because they did not connect heart issues to the canine attack	Exclusion proper; records did not establish causation and were hearsay/relevant objections sustained

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed)
Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160 (4th Cir. 1984) (standard for appointing counsel to pro se civil litigant)
Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989) (limits on appointment of counsel in civil cases)
Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180 (2011) (postverdict motion required to preserve sufficiency review)
Belk, Inc. v. Meyer Corp., U.S., 679 F.3d 146 (4th Cir. 2012) (explaining need to file postverdict motion to preserve sufficiency challenge)
United States v. Cone, 714 F.3d 197 (4th Cir. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)