* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

May 6, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41308 Summary Calendar

ASH BABATUNDE BAKRE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CHRISTOPHER IVINS, Individually and in his official capacity as Correctional Officer 3; BLAKE LAMB, Individually and in his official

capacity as Sergeant,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas

(9:99-CV-140)

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM: *

Ash Babatunde Bakre, Texas state prisoner # 784509, appeals,

pro se , from the judgment adoptin g the jury’s verdict and

dismissing wi th prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 compliant for

excessive force by correctional officers.

Bakre contends that t he district court erred by failing to

require Defendants to produce Bakre’s x-rays for trial and by not

allowing the jury to view all of Bakre’s exhibits. The jurors2

reviewed the radiol ogist’s reports interpreting the x-rays and

heard testimony from a doctor interpreting the reports. Further,

Bakre is mistaken in his assertion that the jurors were not

permitted to see his exhibits; all of the med ical records

introduced at trial were sent to the jury room during

deliberations. The evidentiary rulings were not an abuse of

discretion. P olanco v. City of Austin, Tex.

, 78 F.3d 968, 982 (5th

Cir. 1996).

Bakre further contends that the district court denied him due

process by allowing Defendants to question him about his underlying

1997 criminal conviction for murder. The district court did not

abuse its dis cretion in admitting evidence of Bakre’s felony

conviction; it was proper impeachment evidence. See F ED . R. E VID

.

609(a); Polanco , 78 F.3d at 982.

Bakre next asserts that the district court’s failure to

subpoena certain medical witnesses affected the outcome of the jury

verdict; however, the writ ten reports of the uncalled witnesses

were read into the record and w ere also interpreted by a medical

doctor. The district court did not abuse its discretion in

permitting the trial to proceed without these witnesses. G ibbs v.

King , 779 F.2d 1040, 1047 (5th Cir. 1986).

Finally, Bakre contends that the judgment was contrary to the

law and evidence. Bakre did not move for judgment as a matter of

law at the conclusion of the evidence or after the jury reached its3

verdict. Accordingly, “if any evidence exists that supports the

verdict, it will be upheld”. F lowers v. Southern Re gional

Physician Services, In c. , 247 F.3d 229, 238 (5th Cir. 2001).

Defendants testified that Bakre refused to obey an order, kicked

and screamed when Defendants tried to handcuff him, and had to be

brought to the floor in order to be restrained. Therefore, the

requisite “any evidence” supports the jury’s determination that the

Officers did not use excessive force and that an objectively

reasonable Officer would have f ound the conduct acceptable under

the circumstances. S ee Spann v. Rainey

, 987 F.2d 1110, 1115 & n.7

(5th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED