Stephen Bowen v. Reginald Roberson, 688 F. App'x 168

Bowen sued four police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging each used excessive force after a high-speed chase and his arrest.
Bowen presented the case to a jury; at close of evidence he moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) for directed verdicts against Trees and Trokar; the District Court denied the motion.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendants; the District Court entered judgment accordingly.
Bowen filed a notice of appeal pro se and also attempted to file post‑verdict motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) and 59, but those motions were untimely (filed more than 28 days after judgment).
The District Court denied the late post‑verdict motions; Bowen appealed the denial and sought to challenge the sufficiency/weight of the evidence supporting the jury verdict.
The appellate panel rejected Bowen’s sufficiency challenge as forfeited for failure to timely renew his Rule 50(a) motion under Rule 50(b); it affirmed the judgment and noted that, even on de novo review, the record supported the jury verdict.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bowen may challenge sufficiency of evidence on appeal	Bowen argued the verdict was against weight of evidence and sought judgment/new trial	Defendants argued Bowen failed to preserve the sufficiency challenge by not timely filing Rule 50(b)	Forfeited: failure to file timely Rule 50(b) bars appellate review of sufficiency; judgment affirmed
Whether untimely post‑verdict motions should be considered	Bowen asked the court to consider late Rule 50(b) and Rule 59 motions	Defendants maintained the motions were untimely and legally ineffective to preserve issues	Denied: district court properly rejected untimely motions; timely post‑verdict motions are essential
Whether appellate court has jurisdiction to review despite late motions	Bowen contended the appeal could raise the evidence issue	Defendants relied on procedural rules and precedent foreclosing review	Appellate court had jurisdiction over the appeal but not to review sufficiency absent timely Rule 50(b) motion
If reviewed on merits, whether evidence supports verdict	Bowen contended the force used was excessive	Defendants testified their actions were to stop a dangerous chase and subdue Bowen; Graham standard applied	On the merits, record contained ample evidence supporting the jury’s finding for defendants

Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (2006) (failure to renew Rule 50(a) motion under Rule 50(b) forfeits sufficiency challenge on appeal)
Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180 (2011) (reaffirming need for Rule 50(b) to preserve sufficiency review)
Johnson v. N.Y., N.H. & H.R. Co., 344 U.S. 48 (1952) (timely post‑verdict motion is an essential part of preservation)
Rosenberg v. DVI Receivables XIV, LLC, 818 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2016) (untimely Rule 50(b) motion does not preserve sufficiency challenge)
Cone v. W. Virginia Pulp & Paper Co., 330 U.S. 212 (1947) (appellate courts should not grant new trial on appeal absent timely post‑verdict motion)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (standard for evaluating excessive force claims)
Kinnel v. Mid-Atlantic Mausoleums, Inc., 850 F.2d 958 (3d Cir. 1988) (evidence viewed in light most favorable to prevailing party)