March 23, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 93-1821
CARLTON B. GIBBS,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
CITY OF BOSTON,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges.
Carlton B. Gibbs on brief pro se.
Albert W. Wallis, Corporation Counsel, and Kevin S.
McDermott, Assistant Corporation Counsel, on brief for appellee.
Per Curiam. 1. plaintiff asks this court "to
substitute its judgment and assess the credibility of the
witnesses." We may not do so. See Acevedo-Diaz v. Aponte, 1
F.3d 62, 66 (1st Cir. 1993) (court of appeals will uphold
jury verdict "unless the facts and inferences, viewed in the
light most favorable to the verdict 'point so strongly and
overwhelmingly in favor of the movant that a reasonable jury
could not have [returned the verdict]'"). Indeed, unless
plaintiff made a timely motion for judgment as a matter of
law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 or for new trial under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59 (we find neither motion on the docket or among the
papers), we ordinarily will not review the weight of the
evidence. La Amiga del Pueblo, Inc. v. Robles, 937 F.2d 689,
691 (1st. Cir. 1991). Nevertheless, we have reviewed those
portions of the record presented to us and we conclude that
the jury's verdict is adequately supported by, for example,
James Younger's account as set forth in his deposition.
2. Plaintiff has forfeited review of his challenges
to the jury instructions because plaintiff has failed to
produce a transcript of the instructions. Valedon Martinez
v. Hospital Presbiteriano, 806 F.2d 1128, 1135 (1st Cir.
1986) (appellant precluded meaningful review by failing to
have the jury instructions transcribed). Plaintiff's
indigence does not excuse him from producing the transcript.
Richardson v. Henry 902 F.2d 414, 416 (5th Cir.), cert.
-2-
denied, 498 U.S. 901 (1990); Thomas v. Computax Corp., 631
F.2d 139, 141-43 (9th Cir. 1980).
3. We have considered all of plaintiff's arguments
and find no basis to disturb the judgment below.
Affirmed.
-3-