United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 23, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-60194
Conference Calendar
TIMOTHY BROWN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JODY BRADLEY; KATRINA BOLDEN; PAUL HEISTAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 5:00-CV-79-S
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Timothy Brown, Mississippi state prisoner # R1098, has
appealed the magistrate judge’s judgment dismissing his civil
rights complaint with prejudice following a bench trial. Brown
has moved for preparation of the trial transcript at Government
expense. Brown does not explain in his motion why the transcript
is necessary for disposition of an issue on appeal. Accordingly,
the motion is denied. See Harvey v. Andrist, 754 F.2d 569, 571
(5th Cir. 1985); see also 28 U.S.C. § 753(f).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 02-60194
- 2 -
We construe Brown’s brief as requesting leave to supplement
the record on appeal. “An appellate court may not consider new
evidence furnished for the first time on appeal and may not
consider facts which were not before the district court at the
time of the challenged ruling.” Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson,
185 F.3d 477, 491 n.26 (5th Cir. 1999). The motion is denied.
Brown contends that the judgment was contrary to the law and
the evidence and that the magistrate judge abused his discretion
by failing to order the production of an unredacted prison log.
It is the appellant’s responsibility to provide a transcript of
all relevant evidence to support his appellate argument. See
FED. R. APP. P. 10(b)(2); Powell v. Estelle, 959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th
Cir. 1992). As was noted above, Brown’s request for a transcript
was inadequate, and his failure to provide a transcript prevents
this court from reviewing these issues. See Richardson v. Henry,
902 F.2d 414, 416 (5th Cir. 1990).
Because the appeal is without arguable merit, it is
dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20
(5th Cir. 1983); see also 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The dismissal of this
appeal as frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). We caution Brown that once he accumulates three
strikes, he will not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in
any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or
No. 02-60194
- 3 -
detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED; SANCTION WARNING GIVEN.