Ireh v. Nassau University Medical Center

Second Circuit

Ireh v. Nassau University Medical Center

371 F. App'x 180

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 30, 2010

Docket09-0712-cv

StatusUnpublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 371 F. App'x 180 (Ireh v. Nassau University Medical Center) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ireh v. Nassau University Medical Center, 371 F. App'x 180 (2d Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

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, evi-dentiary 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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, evi-dentiary 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

371 F. App'x 180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ireh-v-nassau-university-medical-center-ca2-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack