Court Opinion

ID: 2962503
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 20:58:32.239729+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:29.532963
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          March 23, 1994        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ___________________          No. 93-1821                                              CARLTON B. GIBBS,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                                   CITY OF BOSTON,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                  __________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                       [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________                                 ___________________                                        Before                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________                            Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________                                 ___________________               Carlton B. Gibbs on brief pro se.
               ________________               Albert   W.  Wallis,  Corporation   Counsel,  and  Kevin  S.
               ___________________                                _________          McDermott, Assistant Corporation Counsel, on brief for appellee.
          _________                                  __________________                                  __________________

                      Per Curiam.    1.   plaintiff asks  this court  "to
                      __________            substitute  its judgment  and assess  the credibility  of the            witnesses."  We may not do so.  See Acevedo-Diaz v. Aponte, 1
                                            ___ ____________    ______            F.3d 62, 66  (1st Cir.  1993) (court of  appeals will  uphold            jury verdict "unless the facts  and inferences, viewed in the            light most  favorable to the  verdict 'point so  strongly and            overwhelmingly in favor  of the movant that a reasonable jury            could not have [returned  the verdict]'").     Indeed, unless            plaintiff  made a timely motion  for judgment as  a matter of            law under Fed. R. Civ. P.  50 or for new trial under  Fed. R.            Civ. P. 59 (we find neither motion on the docket or among the            papers),  we ordinarily  will not  review the  weight of  the            evidence.  La Amiga del Pueblo, Inc. v. Robles, 937 F.2d 689,
                       ________________________     ______            691  (1st. Cir. 1991).   Nevertheless, we have reviewed those            portions of the record  presented to us and we  conclude that            the jury's  verdict is adequately supported  by, for example,            James Younger's account as set forth in his deposition.                      2. Plaintiff has forfeited review of his challenges            to  the jury  instructions  because plaintiff  has failed  to            produce a  transcript of the instructions.   Valedon Martinez
                                                         ________________            v.  Hospital Presbiteriano,  806  F.2d 1128,  1135 (1st  Cir.
                ______________________            1986) (appellant precluded  meaningful review  by failing  to            have   the  jury  instructions   transcribed).    Plaintiff's            indigence does not excuse  him from producing the transcript.            Richardson  v.  Henry 902  F.2d  414, 416  (5th  Cir.), cert.
            __________      _____                                   ____                                         -2-

            denied, 498 U.S.  901 (1990); Thomas  v. Computax Corp.,  631
            ______                        ______     _____________            F.2d 139, 141-43 (9th Cir. 1980).                      3.  We have considered all of plaintiff's arguments            and find no basis to disturb the judgment below.                      Affirmed.
                      ________                                         -3-