SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-Appellant Aneury Peralta appeals from the February 6, 2020 judgment of the District Court (Castel, J.) following a jury verdict in favor of Defendants-Appellees Officer Steven Gliner and the City of New York. Peralta challenges two aspects of the District Courts instructions to the jury relating to his malicious prosecution claim. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and prior record of proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.
Peralta first argues that the District Court erred in failing to instruct the jury that, as a matter of law for malicious prosecution purposes, (1) Officer Gliner had “initiated and/or continued the criminal prosecution of Peralta” and (2) Peraltas prosecution had ended in a “favorable termination.” Appellants Br. at 6. In essence, Peralta argues that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on these two elements of his malicious prosecution claim.
But Peralta failed to file a post-verdict motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 50(b).
1
As a result, we have no “power to direct the District Court to enter judgment contrary to the one it had permitted to stand” except “to prevent a manifest injustice in cases where a jurys verdict is wholly without legal support.” Jacques v. DiMarzio, Inc., 386 F.3d 192, 199 (2d Cir. 2004) (cleaned up). There is no manifest injustice here. The trial evidence supported the jurys verdict in favor of the Defendants-Appellees as to the challenged elements of initiation and favorable termination. There was also evidence that the defendants acted with probable cause and without malice, which provided independent grounds for a verdict in their favor.
Peralta next argues that the District Court erred by instructing the jury that “[t]here is a presumption that prosecutors exercise independent judgment in deciding whether to initiate or continue a criminal proceeding.” Appx 543. Peralta contends that the court should have instructed the jury that, as a matter of law, Officer Gliner initiated the prosecution regardless of the prosecutors later actions. But Peraltas complaint about this instruction is essentially the same as his previous point, which we have already rejected because Peralta failed to move for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50.
We have considered Peraltas remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) provides that a court may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law before the case is submitted to the jury “[i]f a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue.” Rule 50(b), in turn, provides that, “[i]f the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made under Rule 50(a),” then “[n]o later than 28 days after the entry of judgment ․ the movant may file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law.”