
    David RIGGS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES, INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation, Defendant—Appellee, and Overhead Door Company Of Baltimore, INCORPORATED, a Maryland corporation; Washington Overhead Door, Incorporated, d/b/a Overhead Door Company of Washington, DC, a Maryland corporation; Overhead Door Openers, Incorporated, a Maryland corporation; Besam Automated Entrance Systems, Incorporated, a Connecticut corporation; United Dominion Industries, Incorporated, d/b/a TKO Dock Doors, a Delaware corporation; HPD International, Incorporated, d/b/a TKO Dock Doors, a Wisconsin corporation; SPX Corporation, d/b/a TKO DockDoors, a Delaware corporation, Defendants.
    No. 04-2173.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 27, 2005.
    Decided: Feb. 1, 2005.
    David Riggs, Appellant pro se.
    Christopher Redmond Dunn, Decaro, Doran, Siciliano, Gallagher & Deblasis, LLP, Lanham, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

David Riggs appeals from the district court’s judgment in his civil negligence suit, entered after a jury verdict for WalMart Stores, Incorporated. On appeal, Riggs raises only one issue. He asserts that his attorney failed to subpoena key witnesses or present other evidence on his behalf. Because Riggs is bound by the acts of his attorney; see Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633-34, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962), his remedy lies in a malpractice suit, not in an appeal from the district court’s judgment. Id. at 634 n. 10, 82 S.Ct. 1386; see also Universal Film Exchs., Inc. v. Lust, 479 F.2d 573, 576-77 (4th Cir.1973) (finding grossly negligent behavior by attorney did not constitute exceptional circumstances meriting reconsideration). Thus, 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED  