*1 Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Lacey Paige appeals the district court’s adverse judgment ^[1] entered upon a jury verdict in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. He argues that the *2 district court improperly overruled his objections to a defense witness’s testimony, held the jury instruction conference before the defense presented its evidence, and prevented him from calling a witness.

After careful review of the trial record, we conclude: (i) the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Paige’s objections to testimony by the defense witness that was not contrary to the witness’s pretrial affidavit and was based on the witness’s general knowledge and knowledge acquired through his review of records prepared in ordinary course of business, see Allied Sys., Ltd. v. Teamsters Auto. Transp. Chauffeurs, 304 F.3d 785, 792 (8th Cir. 2002); (ii) the court did not commit plain error with regard to the timing of the instruction conference, see Lighting & Power Servs. v. Roberts, 354 F.3d 817, 820 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 51; and (iii) the court did not prevent Paige from calling a witness, but rather reasonably exercised its discretion in enforcing an agreement regarding the order in which witnesses subject to time constraints would be called, see Grayson v. Ross, 454 F.3d 802, 812 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

-2-

[1] The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.