George Kenneth Colbert v. A. Audette; H. Bates; Bhurlbert; Lwolcott

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GEORGE KENNETH COLBERT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
A. AUDETTE; H. BATES; B
HURLBERT; L WOLCOTT,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-16797
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-01890-GEB-
KJM
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, SKOPIL and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
George Colbert appeals from the district court’s entry of judgment following
a jury verdict in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit. Colbert argues that the district court
made several improper evidentiary rulings and that it exceeded its legal authority.
FILED
FEB 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
The facts of this case are known to the parties. We do not repeat them.
Colbert failed to preserve his appeal rights regarding the district court’s
exclusion of evidence because he does not demonstrate that he made an offer of
proof at trial. See Tennison v. Circus Circus Enters., Inc., 244 F.3d 684, 689 (9th
Cir. 2001). Colbert also fails to demonstrate how the exclusion of his exhibits was
prejudicial. See McEuin v. Crown Equipment Corp., 328 F.3d 1028, 1034 (9th
Cir. 2003).
Colbert’s remaining contentions are waived because he does not support
them with any analysis, argument, evidence or citation to any legal authority. See
Kohler v. Inter-Tel Techs., 244 F.3d 1167, 1182 (9th Cir. 2001).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --