did not, however, request the court to expound on its punitive damages ruling, either at the close of trial or in the post-trial proceedings. After Crown Auto noted its appeal of the district court’s denial of the Rule 50 motions, Adkins filed her cross-appeal on the court’s refusal to submit the issue of punitive damages to the jury. As with Crown Auto’s appeal, we possess jurisdiction over the cross-appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the court’s punitive damages ruling for abuse of discretion. Cf. Anderson v. G.D.C., Inc., 281 F.3d 452, 459 (4th Cir.2002) (reviewing denial of motion for new trial for abuse of discretion, where court had refused to submit issue of punitive damages to jury in non-bifurcated trial); United States v. Abbas, 74 F.3d 506, 513 (4th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). A trial court abuses its discretion in
holding that denial of joinder motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that the dismissal of a frivolous action reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that a district courts decision on whether to hold a daubert hearing is reviewed only for abuse of discretion recognizing that the decision of whether to give a jury instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that the imposition of sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion