NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted August 18, 2016*
Decided August 18, 2016
Before
RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
No. 15‐1936
LAZERRICK COFFEE, Appeal from the United States District
Plaintiff‐Appellant, Court for the Central District of Illinois.
v. No. 12‐C‐1416
EDWARD D. LEWIS, et al., James E. Shadid,
Defendants‐Appellees. Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Lazerrick Coffee, an Illinois inmate, sued several correctional officers under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that they violated the Eighth Amendment during a cell
extraction. The district court granted summary judgment to one defendant and after
Coffee presented his case‐in‐chief to a jury, granted judgment as a matter of law to the
remaining defendants. See FED. R. CIV. P. 50(a).
* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is
unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP.
P. 34(a)(2)(C).
No. 15‐1936 Page 2
Coffee appeals only the grant of judgment as a matter of law. But to properly
assess this argument, we would need to review the evidence Coffee presented at trial.
See FED. R. CIV. P. 50(a)(1) (explaining that the district court may grant judgment as a
matter of law if the evidence presented at trial does not provide “legally sufficient
evidentiary basis to find for the party”). Coffee, however, failed to submit the trial
transcript to this court. See FED. R. APP. P. 10(b)(2) (“If the appellant intends to urge on
appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the
evidence, the appellant must include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to
that finding or conclusion.”). He did request the transcript from the district court, but the
court denied that request, and Coffee did not renew his request in this court or obtain the
transcript using other means. Moreover, the appellees’ response brief warned Coffee of
the potential consequences of failing to provide a transcript. Thus, we decline to exercise
our authority to order Coffee to supplement the record on appeal. See FED. R. APP.
P. 10(e)(2)(C); Morisch v. United States, 653 F.3d 522, 530 (7th Cir. 2011); Learning Curve
Toys, Inc. v. PlayWood Toys, Inc., 342 F.3d 714, 731 n.10 (7th Cir. 2003).
Because the absence of a transcript precludes our review, Coffee’s appeal is
DISMISSED.