Summary
ruling that plaintiff's performance during prior employment not relevant to work performed for defendant and that prior employment records not likely to lead to discovery of admissible evidence as such evidence would be inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404
Summary of this case from Allen v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.Opinion
No. 09-0712-cv.
March 30, 2010.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Wexler, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.
Ugo Alexis Ireh, Yonkers, N.Y., Appellant. pro se.
Christopher G. Gegwich and Christopher J. Porzio, Nixon Peabody LLP, Jerico, N.Y., for Appellees.
PRESENT: WILFRED FEINBERG, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY ORDER
Appellant Dr. Ugo Alexis Ireh, pro se, appeals the judgment of the district court, following a jury trial, in favor of Appellees on his employment discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as well as the district court's order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) motion for a new trial. On appeal, Ireh does not argue that the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Instead, he raises various claims of error concerning the district court's discovery orders, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and general management of the trial. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
We review a district court's discovery orders and evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. See Indep. Order of Foresters v. Donald, Lufkin Jenrette, 157 F.3d 933, 937 (2d Cir. 1998) (discovery orders); Silverstein v. Chase, 260 F.3d 142, 145 (2d Cir. 2001) (evidentiary rulings). Additionally, where a party does not object to a jury instruction at trial, we will not review any challenge thereto on appeal unless our review is necessary to avoid a "miscarriage of justice or . . . an obvious misapplication of the law." Johnson v. New York Hosp., 96 F.3d 33, 34 (2d Cir. 1996) (per curiam).
Here, after a thorough and exhaustive review of the record, we conclude that all of Ireh's arguments on appeal are without merit.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.