IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-20278
Conference Calendar
ROLAND H. RUDD,
also known as Elisha Aziz Muhammed,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
AMY H. SCUDDER; SAMUEL ROGERS;
T. CASCIATO; T. DRAPER; WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR,
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-94-CV-169
- - - - - - - - - -
October 20, 1998
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Roland H. Rudd, TDCJ-ID # #283539, appeals the
district court’s judgment in favor of the defendants in this
civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He
challenges several rulings made by the district court during his
jury trial.
An appellant, even one pro se, who wishes to challenge
findings or conclusions that are based on proceedings at a
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 97-20278
-2-
trial has the responsibility to order a transcript. Fed. R. App.
P. 10(b); Powell v. Estelle, 959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th Cir. 1992).
This court does not consider the merits of an issue when an
appellant fails in that responsibility. Powell, 959 F.2d at 26.
Rudd has not provided a trial transcript. All issues raised
on appeal require examination of the transcript. We must
therefore decline to consider all issues Rudd raises. See
Alizadeh v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 910 F.2d 234, 237 (5th Cir.
1990).
Because there is no issue before us of arguable merit, the
appeal is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20
(5th Cir. 1983). Therefore, the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH
CIR. R. 42.2.