Case Name: Leon KORNEGAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John DOE, etc. Correctional Officers, any Supervisory Personnel Suffolk County, Central Suffolk Medical Hospital, County of Suffolk, Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, Suffolk County Sheriff, C.O. John Finocchiaro, Sgt. Robert Aitken, C.O. James Kieran, C.O. William Shipman, Lt. John Nolan, Sgt. Christopher Black, Sgt. Bernard Conway, C.O. Mark Magnani, C.O. Paul Engelhardt, C.O. Louis Viscusi, Sgt. Marcinowski, C.O. John Urbancik, C.O. Ralph Danielssen, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-30
Citations: 371 F. App'x 178
Docket Number: No. 09-0690-pr
Parties: Leon KORNEGAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John DOE, etc. Correctional Officers, any Supervisory Personnel Suffolk County, Central Suffolk Medical Hospital, County of Suffolk, Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department, Suffolk County Sheriff, C.O. John Finocchiaro, Sgt. Robert Aitken, C.O. James Kieran, C.O. William Shipman, Lt. John Nolan, Sgt. Christopher Black, Sgt. Bernard Conway, C.O. Mark Magnani, C.O. Paul Engelhardt, C.O. Louis Viscusi, Sgt. Marcinowski, C.O. John Urbancik, C.O. Ralph Danielssen, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, REENA RAGGI, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 371
Pages: 178–179

Head Matter:
Leon KORNEGAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John DOE, etc. Correctional Officers, any Supervisory Personnel Suffolk County, Central Suffolk Medical Hospital, County of Suffolk, Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department, Suffolk County Sheriff, C.O. John Finocchiaro, Sgt. Robert Aitken, C.O. James Kieran, C.O. William Shipman, Lt. John Nolan, Sgt. Christopher Black, Sgt. Bernard Conway, C.O. Mark Magnani, C.O. Paul Engelhardt, C.O. Louis Viscusi, Sgt. Marcinowski, C.O. John Urbancik, C.O. Ralph Danielssen, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-0690-pr.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
March 30, 2010.
Leon Kornegay, Deer Park, NY, appellant, pro se.
Brian C. Mitchell, Assistant County Attorney, County of Suffolk, Hauppauge, NY, for Appellees.
PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, REENA RAGGI, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Leon Kornegay, pro se, appeals a judgment in favor of defendants on this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging principally that corrections officers subjected him to excessive force. Although Kornegay's failure to state the basis for his appeal arguably warrants affirmance, see Otero v. Bridgeport Housing Auth., 297 F.3d 142, 144 (2d Cir.2002), we construe the appeal as challenging the grant of defendants' pre-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a). Such a motion may be granted only where "a reasonable jury could reach but one conclusion." Hannex Corp. v. GMI, Inc., 140 F.3d 194, 203 (2d Cir.1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review the grant of a Rule 50 motion de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Tuccio v. Marconi, 589 F.3d 538, 540-41 (2d Cir.2009). In applying this standard, we assume familiarity with the facts and procedural history, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.
It is well settled that "personal involvement of defendants in alleged constitutional deprivations is a prerequisite to an award of damages under § 1983." Farid v. Ellen, 593 F.3d 233, 249 (2d Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). To be sure, the "general principle of tort law that a tort victim who cannot identify the tort-feasor cannot bring suit" may be "relaxed . in actions brought by pro se litigants," "particularly . where the plaintiff is incarcerated." Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72, 75 (2d Cir.1997) (internal citation omitted). Kornegay is no longer incarcerated, however, and he was permitted discovery. Nevertheless, in his own sworn testimony before the jury, Kornegay failed to attribute specific actions to any individual defendant. Even if we were to treat Kornegay's opening statement as evidence, which we do not, it serves only further to illustrate his inability to demonstrate which, if any, of the defendants engaged in the challenged conduct. Thus, we detect no error in the district court's conclusion that Kornegay failed to present evidence sufficient to permit a reasonable juror to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he had satisfied his "burden of establishing that something was done to [him] and by whom it was done." Trial Tr. at 30 (emphasis supplied).
We have considered Kornegay's remaining arguments on appeal, and they are without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.