Plaintiff pro se John Bal appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, John S. Martin, Jr., Judge, dismissing his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the termination of his employment violated his rights under the First Amendment and various other state and federal laws. The district court granted summary judgment dismissing Bal's claims as a matter of law against most of the defendants and dismissed the claims against defendant Blash as a matter of law at trial; the jury returned a verdict in favor of the remaining defendant, Adelman. We see no errors warranting reversal. The decisions of the district court on questions of law were correct. See, e.g., United States v. National Treasury Employees Union, 115 S.Ct. 1003, 1012-13 (1995); Waters v. Churchill, 114 S.Ct. 1878, 1887 (1994); Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 386 n. 9 (1987); Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 148-149 (1983); Luck v. Mazzone, 52 F.3d 475, 476 (2d Cir.1995) (per curiam); Sheppard v. Beerman, 18 F.3d 147, 151 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 73 (1994); and we are not entitled to second-guess the jury's verdict in favor of Adelman, see, e.g., Simblest v. Maynard, 427 F.2d 1, 4 (2d Cir.1970); see also Jim Beam Brands Co. v. Beamish & Crawford Ltd., 937 F.2d 729, 736 (2d Cir.1991) (weight of evidence is question for factfinder), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1094 (1992).

We have considered all of Bal's arguments on this appeal and have found them to be without merit.

The judgment dismissing the complaint is affirmed.