
    Isaiah BONGAM, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant—Appellee.
    No. 04-1759.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 31, 2005.
    Decided Feb. 28, 2005.
    Sean D. Hummel, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. William B. Tiller, Beatytiller, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Isaiah Bongam appeals the district court’s order granting judgment as a matter of law under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a), in favor of Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”). We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the joint appendix and find no reversible error. We agree with Bongam that his testimony was subject to more than one interpretation and, therefore, that judgment as a matter of law based upon contributory negligence was not appropriate. Ocheltree v. Scollon Prods., Inc., 335 F.3d 325, 331 (4th Cir.2003) (en banc) (“Judgment as a matter of law is proper only if ‘there can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict.’ ”) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1177, 124 S.Ct. 1406, 158 L.Ed.2d 77 (2004). We nevertheless affirm the district court’s judgment on alternative grounds. See United States v. Smith, 395 F.3d 516, 518-19 (4th Cir.2005) (‘We are not limited to evaluation of the grounds offered by the district court to support its decision, but may affirm on any grounds apparent from the record.”).

Our review of the trial testimony leads us to conclude that, had the jury considered the testimony relating to Bongam’s claim of negligence, the jury could have drawn only one reasonable conclusion— that Bongam faded to establish a prima facie case of negligence. See Horridge v. St. Mary’s County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 382 Md. 170, 854 A.2d 1232, 1238 (2004) (discussing prima facie case); Moulden v. Greenbelt Consumer Servs., Inc., 239 Md. 229, 210 A.2d 724, 725-26 (1965). Accordingly, we affirm. 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  