Filed: Apr. 16, 2020
Latest Update: Apr. 16, 2020
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 16 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DUANE JENSEN, No. 18-15590 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00029-RFB-VCF v. MEMORANDUM* LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Richard F. Boulware II, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 7, 2020** Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 16 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DUANE JENSEN, No. 18-15590 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00029-RFB-VCF v. MEMORANDUM* LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Richard F. Boulware II, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 7, 2020** Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges...
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 16 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DUANE JENSEN, No. 18-15590
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00029-RFB-VCF
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Richard F. Boulware II, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Duane Jensen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a
jury verdict in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his First
Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
Jensen waived his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jury’s verdict by failing to move for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial
before the district court. See Nitco Holding Corp. v. Boujikian,
491 F.3d 1086,
1089-90 (9th Cir. 2007) (to preserve a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, a
party must file both a pre-verdict motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) and a post-
verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law or new trial under Rule 50(b)).
AFFIRMED.
2 18-15590