Jones

MEMORANDUM **

Nevada state prisoner Christopher A. Jones appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his new trial motion after a jury verdict in favor of defendants *578 in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a new trial, Sanghvi v. City of Claremont, 328 F.3d 532, 536 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to impose sanctions against defendants for the loss of Jones’ x-ray films because the record does not demonstrate bad faith by defendants or significant prejudice to Jones. See Leon v. IDX Systems Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 958 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that inquiry into prejudice looks to whether the spoiling party’s actions impaired the non-spoiling party’s ability to go to trial or threatened to interfere with the rightful decision of the case).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying admission of Jones’ remaining x-ray films after Jones failed to introduce any witness competent to authenticate or interpret the films. See Fed. R.Evid. 803(6)…