Case Name: Kathy Glenn CLAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PAPIK, Peace Officer, Serial No. 4017, individual and official capacity, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-28
Citations: 704 F. App'x 709
Docket Number: No. 16-56286
Parties: Kathy Glenn CLAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PAPIK, Peace Officer, Serial No. 4017, individual and official capacity, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 704
Pages: 709–709

Head Matter:
Kathy Glenn CLAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PAPIK, Peace Officer, Serial No. 4017, individual and official capacity, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-56286
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted November 15, 2017
Filed November 28, 2017
Kathy Glenn Clay, Pro Se
Shaun Dabby Jacobs, Matthew Alex Scherb, Attorney, Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, Los Angeles,- CA, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

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