Norman

MEMORANDUM **

Obed Norman appeals pro se the jury verdict for defendant in his action alleging Washington State University denied him tenure based on his race and in retaliation for filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Because Norman did not file a Fed. R.Civ.P. 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law, we review the jury’s verdict for plain error. Janes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 279 F.3d 883, 888 (9th Cir. 2002). We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s evidentiary rulings. Defenders of Wildlife v. Bernal, 204 F.3d 920, 927 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

Because we cannot say that there is “an absolute absence of evidence to support the jury’s verdict,” the district court did not commit plain error in entering judgment for defendants. See Image Technical Servs. Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 125 F.3d 1195 , 1212 (9th Cir.1997) (citations ommitted).

Norman contends he was prejudiced because the district court allowed evidence of a sexual harassment investigation against Norman. This contention lacks merit because Norman himself referred to this evidence during his opening statement.…