NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 28 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KATHY GLENN CLAY, No. 16-56286
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-06599-MRW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PAPIK, Peace Officer, Serial No. 4017,
individual and official capacity,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael R. Wilner, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted November 15, 2017***
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Kathy Glenn Clay appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment entered
following a jury verdict in favor of defendant Papik in Clay’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
excessive force action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
Clay failed to preserve her challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence
because Clay did not move for judgment as a matter of law either before or after
the jury’s verdict. See Nitco Holding Corp. v. Boujikian, 491 F.3d 1086, 1089 (9th
Cir. 2007) (“[T]o preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support
the verdict in a civil case, a party must make two motions. First, a party must file a
pre-verdict motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a). Second, a party must file a
post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, a motion for a
new trial, under Rule 50(b).” (citations omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-56286