UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6267
DARREL A. WHITE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFFICER M. OWENS, a/k/a M. Ownes,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
WARDEN BRYAN WATSON; CAPTAIN ANDERSON; NURSE HARBER,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District
Judge. (7:10-cv-00514-MFU-RSB)
Submitted: May 24, 2012 Decided: May 31, 2012
Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darrel A. White, Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Parsons,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darrel White appeals the jury verdict in his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2006) action in favor of defendant M. Owens. White
argues that the verdict is not supported by the evidence adduced
at trial, that the trial judge erred in failing to properly
respond to the jury’s request for supplemental information
during deliberations, and that the jury was biased against him.
He also appeals the district court’s denial of his post-judgment
motion for a new trial and to set aside the verdict.
The record does not contain a transcript of the jury
proceedings. An appellant has the burden of including in the
record on appeal a transcript of all parts of the proceedings
material to the issues raised on appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 10(b);
4th Cir. R. 10(c). An appellant proceeding on appeal in forma
pauperis is entitled to transcripts at government expense only
in certain circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (2006). By
failing to produce a transcript or to request or qualify for the
production of a transcript at government expense, White has
waived review of the issues on appeal that depend upon the
transcript to show error. See generally Fed. R. App. P.
10(b)(2); Keller v. Prince George’s Cnty., 827 F.2d 952, 954 n.1
(4th Cir. 1987). As no error appears on the record before us,
we affirm the jury’s verdict.
2
Insofar as we are able to review the district court’s
order denying White’s post-judgment motions in the absence of a
transcript, we have reviewed the available record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. White v. Owens, No.
7:10-cv-00514-MFU-RSB (W.D. Va. Mar. 20, 2012). We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3