Frederick Marc Cooley v. R. Leung, P 8556; E. Ludtke, P 9044

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FREDERICK MARC COOLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
R. LEUNG, P # 8556; E. LUDTKE,
P # 9044,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-16268
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01138-RLH-NJK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Roger L. Hunt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Frederick Marc Cooley appeals pro se from a jury verdict for defendants in
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging unlawful search and seizure. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a
district court’s formulation of the jury instructions, Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUL 5 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-16268
930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in formulating the jury
instructions, which fairly and adequately stated the law, covered the issues
presented at trial, and were not misleading. See id. (setting forth requirements for
jury instructions); Brewer v. City of Napa, 210 F.3d 1093, 1097 (9th Cir. 2000)
(rejection of theory-of-the-case instruction is not error where party is able to argue
his or her theory to the jury and the theory is adequately covered by the other
instructions).
We reject as without merit Cooley’s allegations that the district court
improperly interrupted his closing arguments.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --