09 -07 12 -cv Ireh v. Nassau Univers ity Medical Center 

### UNITE D STATES C OURT OF AP PEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MARY O RDE R

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIA L E F F E C T. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL R U L E 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED W I T H T H IS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 30 day of March, two thousand ten.

th
PRESENT: WILFRED FEINBERG,

ROBERT A. KATZMANN, PETER W. HALL,

Circuit Judges
.

__________________________________________ Dr. Ugo Alexis Ireh, M.D.,

Plaintiff-Appellant ,
v. 09-0712-cv Nassau University Medical Center and Nassau Health Care Corporation,

Defendants-Appellee s.

__________________________________________ FOR APPELLANT: Ugo Alexis Ireh, pro se , Yonkers, N.Y. FOR APPELLEES: Christopher G. Gegwich and Christopher J. Porzio, Nixon Peabody LLP, Jerico, N.Y.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Wexler, J. ).2 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED . Appellant Dr. Ugo Alexis Ireh, pro se , appeals the judgment of the district court, following a jury trial, in favor of Appellees on his employment discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq ., as well as the district court’s order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) motion for a new trial. On appeal, Ireh does not argue that the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Instead, he raises various claims of error concerning the district court’s discovery orders, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and general management of the trial. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. We review a district court’s discovery orders and evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. See Indep. Order of Foresters v. Donald, Lufkin & Jenrette , 157 F.3d 933, 937 (2d Cir. 1998) (discovery orders); Silverstein v. Chase , 260 F.3d 142, 145 (2d Cir. 2001)(evidentiary rulings). Additionally, where a party does not object to a jury instruction at trial, we will not review any challenge thereto on appeal unless our review is necessary to avoid a “miscarriage of justice or . . . an obvious misapplication of the law.” Johnson v. New York Hosp. , 96 F.3d 33, 34 (2d Cir. 1996) (per curiam).3 Here, after a thorough and exhaustive review of the record, we conclude that all of Ireh’s arguments on appeal are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED .

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk