
    Robert GARBER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOHAMMADI; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-56518
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 5, 2018 
    
    Filed March 7, 2018
    Robert Garber, Pro Se
    Paul L. Winnemore, Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TROTT and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R, App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Robert Garber appeals pro se the district court’s judgment, after a jury trial, in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action, alleging police use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court did not err in granting judgment as a matter of law on Gar-ber’s excessive force claim against Officer Hamed Mohammadi. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a); Reed v. Lieurance, 863 F.3d 1196, 1204 (9th Cir. 2017). The evidence, including a police videotape, showed that officers’ use of force in detaining and handcuffing and hobbling Garber and transporting him to a psychiatric hospital was objectively reasonable under the circumstances because his conduct posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers, the public, and himself, and there, was no evidence, such as medical records or photographs, of injury to Garber. See Zion v. Cty. of Orange, 874 F.3d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 2017).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the time for Garber’s cross-examination of Officer Mohammadi, See Fed. R. Evid. 611(a); Dorn v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 397 F.3d 1183, 1192 (9th Cir. 2005). The district court also did not abuse its discretion in admitting the police videotape. See Cheffins v. Stewart, 825 F.3d 588, 596 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that evidentiary rulings will not be reversed absent abuse of discretion and showing of prejudice). Finally, Garber has established no prejudicial error in the conduct of discovery. See Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     