Case Name: Moshe Cinque CANTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frederick J. KRUGER, Correction Lieutenant, Lt. Quinn, Correction Lieutenant, Richard J. Cox, Correction Sergeant, Peter M. Kuc, Correction Officer, Jeffrey W. Claflin, Correction Officer, Richard M. Knight, Correction Officer, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-22
Citations: 367 F. App'x 195
Docket Number: No. 08-3407-pr
Parties: Moshe Cinque CANTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frederick J. KRUGER, Correction Lieutenant, Lt. Quinn, Correction Lieutenant, Richard J. Cox, Correction Sergeant, Peter M. Kuc, Correction Officer, Jeffrey W. Claflin, Correction Officer, Richard M. Knight, Correction Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, ROSEMARY S. POOLER and ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 367
Pages: 195–195

Head Matter:
Moshe Cinque CANTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frederick J. KRUGER, Correction Lieutenant, Lt. Quinn, Correction Lieutenant, Richard J. Cox, Correction Sergeant, Peter M. Kuc, Correction Officer, Jeffrey W. Claflin, Correction Officer, Richard M. Knight, Correction Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-3407-pr.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Feb. 22, 2010.
Moshe Cinque Canty, Elmira, NY, pro se.
Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General of the State of New York; Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General of the State of-New York; Andrea Oser, Deputy Solicitor General of the State of New York; Raj it S. Dosanjh, Assistant Solicitor General of the State of New York, for Appellee.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, ROSEMARY S. POOLER and ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-appellant Moshe Cinque Canty argues that the jury's verdict was unsupported by sufficient evidence. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
Canty did not preserve his argument by filing a motion pursuant to Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, we may consider his challenge only: (1) if the district court indicated that a Rule 50 motion need not be filed, or (2) "to prevent a manifest injustice in cases where a jury's verdict is wholly without legal support." Jacques v. DiMarzio, Inc., 386 F.3d 192, 199 (2d Cir.2004) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). Here, the district court did not relieve Canty of his obligation under Rule 50, and the officers' testimony at trial constitutes sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict.
Finding no merit in Canty's remaining arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.