Case ID: f-appx_693/html/0585-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Frederick Marc COOLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. LEUNG, P # 8556; E. Ludtke, P # 9044, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-16268
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2017
    
    Filed July 5, 2017
    Frederick Marc Cooley, Pro Se
    Robert Wilson Freeman, Jr., Esquire, Attorney, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),
    
   MEMORANDUM

Frederick Marc Cooley appeals pro se from a jury verdict for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging unlawful search and seizure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s formulation of the jury instructions, Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in formulating the jury instructions, which fairly and adequately stated the law, covered the issues presented at trial, and were not misleading. See id. (setting forth requirements for jury instructions); Brewer v. City of Napa, 210 F.3d 1093, 1097 (9th Cir. 2000) (rejection of theory-of-the-case instruction is not error where party is able to argue his or her theory to the jury and the theory is adequately covered by the other instructions).

We reject as without merit Cooley’s allegations that the district court improperly interrupted his closing arguments.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.