¶2 Kathy Glenn Clay appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment entered following a jury verdict in favor of defendant Papik in Clay’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive force action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
¶3 Clay failed to preserve her challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence because Clay did not move for judgment as a matter of law either before or after the jury’s verdict. See Nitco Holding Corp. v. Boujikian, 491 F.3d 1086, 1089 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[T]o preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict in a civil case, a party must make two motions. First, a party must file a pre-verdict motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a). Second, a party must file a post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, a motion for a new trial, under Rule 50(b).” (citations omitted)).
¶4 AFFIRMED.