08-3407-pr Canty v. Kruger UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT . CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT ’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT , A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER ”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL .

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 22 nd day of February, two thousand ten.

6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 7 Chief Judge, 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 10 Circuit Judges.

12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 13 MOSHE CINQUE CANTY, 14 Plaintiff-Appellant, 16 -v.- 08-3407-pr 18 FREDERICK J. KRUGER, Correction 19 Lieutenant, LT. QUINN, Correction 20 Lieutenant, RICHARD J. COX, Correction 21 Sergeant, PETER M. KUC, Correction 22 Officer, JEFFREY W. CLAFLIN, 23 Correction Officer, RICHARD M. KNIGHT, 24 Correction Officer, 25 Defendants-Appellees.

26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

1 APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: Moshe Cinque Canty, pro se, 2 Elmira, New York.

4 APPEARING FOR APPELLEE: Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney 5 General of the State of New 6 York; Barbara D. Underwood, 7 Solicitor General of the State 8 of New York; Andrea Oser, Deputy 9 Solicitor General of the State 10 of New York; Rajit S. Dosanjh, 11 Assistant Solicitor General of 12 the State of New York.

14 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (McCurn, J.).

17 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

21 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.

26 Canty did not preserve his argument by filing a motion pursuant to Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

28 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.”

32 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.

39 Finding no merit in Canty’s remaining arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

42 FOR THE COURT: 43 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK