Case Name: Olney REYNOLDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER, Joseph Stout, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Commissioner, Department of Parks, Recreation, & Conservation, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-23
Citations: 221 F. App'x 78
Docket Number: Nos. 06-0214, 06-2212
Parties: Olney REYNOLDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER, Joseph Stout, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Commissioner, Department of Parks, Recreation, & Conservation, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 221
Pages: 78–79

Head Matter:
Olney REYNOLDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER, Joseph Stout, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Commissioner, Department of Parks, Recreation, & Conservation, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 06-0214, 06-2212.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
March 23, 2007.
Richard J. Merritt, Law Office of Richard J. Merritt, Esq., Lindenhurst, NY, for Appellant.
Gregory J. Spaun, Oxman Tulis Kirkpartiek Whyatt & Geiger LLP, (Stuart Evan Kahan, of counsel), White Plains, NY, for Appellee.
PRESENT: Hon. ROBERT D. SACK, Hon. B.D. PARKER, Hon. PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
We assume that the parties and counsel are familiar with the facts, the procedural history, and the scope of the issues presented on appeal.
The plaintiff-appellant Olney Reynolds argues that the district court erroneously denied his request for admissions, quashed subpoenas, precluded witnesses from testifying, and prevented him from eliciting testimony from other witnesses. These alleged errors, according to Reynolds, require that we vacate the jury's verdict against him and remand for a new trial.
The district court's evidentiary rulings did not interfere with Reynolds's "substantial rights." Fed.R.Civ.P. 61. None of the decisions could have had a " 'substantial and injurious effect or influence' on the jury's verdict." Crigger v. Fahnestock and Co., Inc., 443 F.3d 230, 238 (2d Cir.2006).
For the foregoing reasons, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.