From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anthony v. Henry

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Page 579
Apr 30, 2008
276 F. App'x 578 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 06-15396.

Submitted April 22, 2008.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed April 30, 2008.

Mark Anthony, Vacaville, CA, pro se.

Jeri Lynn Pappone, Esq., Longyear O'Dea and Lavra, Kelley Suzanne Elkins Kern, Esq., Cook Brown LLP, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Garland E. Burrell, Chief Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-02-01899-GEB/ GGH.

Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Mark Anthony appeals pro se from the district court's judgment after a jury trial, dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force by an arresting officer. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court's evidentiary rulings, Tritchkr v. County of Lake, 358 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to admit Anthony's medical records into evidence for impeachment purposes because Anthony failed to authenticate the records. See Fed.R.Evid. 803(6) (requiring custodian or other qualified witness to authenticate records).

Anthony's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Anthony's motion for appointment of counsel and request for judicial notice are denied.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Anthony v. Henry

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Page 579
Apr 30, 2008
276 F. App'x 578 (9th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

Anthony v. Henry

Case Details

Full title:Mark ANTHONY, Plaintiff — Appellant, v. Todd HENRY, Defendant — Appellee…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Page 579

Date published: Apr 30, 2008

Citations

276 F. App'x 578 (9th Cir. 2008)