Luis Antonio Rosado, Jr. v. Joshua Barnes; Quamanyne M. Johnson; Larry Grier; Mickeeyn Robinson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6340
LUIS ANTONIO ROSADO, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOSHUA BARNES; QUAMANYNE M. JOHNSON; LARRY GRIER;
MICKEEYN ROBINSON,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
SUPERINTENDENT FLEMMINGS; ERIC RIGGS; DA’SHONE JOYNER,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:19-ct-03358-BO)
Submitted: July 31, 2024 Decided: August 20, 2024
Before WILKINSON, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Luis Antonio Rosado, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Luis Antonio Rosado, Jr., appeals the district court’s order entering judgment in
favor of Appellees—Joshua Barnes, Quamanyne Johnson, Larry Grier, and Mickeeyn
Robinson—following a jury trial on Rosado’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims asserting that
Appellees used excessive force against him.
Rosado raises several claims on appeal. First, he contends that Appellees admitted
records of disciplinary infractions Rosado incurred after the date of the alleged excessive
force. The record does not support this contention. Next, he contends that Appellees
committed perjury, but he provides no support for that claim, and we will not second-guess
the jury’s credibility determinations. Third, he contends that Appellees failed to preserve
security camera footage that would have supported his claims, but Appellees asserted—
and Rosado does not refute—that there were no cameras in the staff bathroom where the
incident occurred. Finally, he contends the district court erred in failing to rule until after
trial on his motion to compel witnesses. However, Rosado did not present argument in
favor of his motion, and he has not established what testimony those witnesses would have
offered. Thus, the district court did not err.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We also deny all pending
motions. 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

-- 3 of 3 --