Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

HERNANDEZ v. VILLICANA, 344 Fed.Appx. 380 (9th Cir. 2009)

Andres Ernesto HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Miguel VILLICANA,Lieutenant, Defendant-Appellee., 344 F. App'x 380 (9th Cir. 2009)

Type
Opinion
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
2009-09-02
Topic
general

HERNANDEZ v. VILLICANA, 344 Fed.Appx. 380 (9th Cir. 2009) Andres Ernesto HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Miguel VILLICANA,Lieutenant, Defendant-Appellee. No. 08-55778.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Submitted July 17, 2009.[fn*] Filed September 2, 2009. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.][fn*] The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P.34(a)(2).

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed HERNANDEZ v. VILLICANA, 344 Fed.Appx. 380 (9th Cir. 2009). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

HERNANDEZ v. VILLICANA,344 Fed.Appx. 380(9th Cir. 2009)
Andres Ernesto HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Miguel VILLICANA,
Lieutenant, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-55778.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 17, 2009.fn*
Filed September 2, 2009.
Andres Ernesto Hernandez, Represa, CA, pro se.

David B. Wallace, Assistant U.S., Samuel William Bettwy, Assistant U.S., Office of The U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 3:99-cv-02121-JAHCAB.
Before: HUG, SKOPIL and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUMfn**
Andres Ernesto Hernandez appeals pro se from the district court's final judgment in favor of Defendant Villicana after the jury returned a verdict denying Hernandez's claim brought underBivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureauof Narcotics,403 U.S. 388,91 S.Ct. 1999,29 L.Ed.2d 619(1971). We affirm.

The facts of the case are known to the parties and we do not repeat them here.Page 381

Hernandez waived his right to challenge on appeal the jury's verdict because he did not file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure50(b).See Nitco Holding Corp. v.Boujikian,491 F.3d 1086,1089(9th Cir. 2007);Desrosiers v. Flight Int'l of Flo. Inc.,156 F.3d 952,956-57(9th Cir. 1998).AFFIRMED.
  1. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩
  2. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument.SeeFed.R.App.P.34(a)(2). ↩
  3. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ↩