UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MADELINE E. BOOTH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.                                                             No. 98-1373

SHONEY'S, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon.
James P. Jones, District Judge.
(CA-97-73-A)

Argued: May 6, 1999

Decided: June 28, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Gray Robinson, JACKSON & ROBINSON, Bristol, Vir-
ginia, for Appellant. Jeffrey Franklin Brooke, HUFF, POOLE &
MAHONEY, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee. ON
BRIEF: Thomas C. Jessee, JESSEE & JESSEE, Johnson City, Ten-
nessee, for Appellant. Linda S. Westenburger, HUFF, POOLE &
MAHONEY, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

In this diversity "slip and fall" case, Madeline E. Booth alleged that
Shoney's, Inc. negligently failed to maintain the premises of its rest-
room by permitting water to gather on the floor, thus constituting a
hazard to patrons who utilized the sinks to wash their hands. Booth
asserted that Shoney's negligence in allowing the restroom floor to be
wet caused her to slip and fall, breaking her hip.

At the close of Booth's evidence, Shoney's moved for a judgment
as a matter of law. Although the district court indicated concern about
"the sufficiency of the evidence," the court denied the motion. At the
close of all of the evidence, Shoney's renewed its motion for judg-
ment as a matter of law, which the district court then granted. Booth
appeals asserting that the district court erred in granting the motion.

After having had the benefit of oral argument and briefing from the
parties, and after carefully reviewing the legal authorities and record,
we conclude that the district court did not err in any respect in grant-
ing judgment for Shoney's. We affirm on the basis of the district
court's well-reasoned oral opinion.

AFFIRMED

                     2
