UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6932
R. MACEO DEANE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
LARRY HUFFMAN; DAVID K. SMITH; RUFUS FLEMING;
STANLEY JONES; CAPTAIN SPEARS; CAPTAIN
WOODSON; LIEUTENANT YATES; LIEUTENANT WILSON;
LIEUTENANT ELDRIDGE; SERGEANT TRENT; SERGEANT
TONEY; SERGEANT SMITH; SERGEANT PHILLIPS;
SERGEANT TERRY; CAPTAIN SPEAS; SERGEANT STITH,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District
Judge. (CA-94-619-R)
Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 3, 1997
Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
R. Maceo Deane, Appellant Pro Se. Jill Theresa Bowers, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's order entering judgment
on the jury verdict for two Appellees and granting judgment as a
matter of law for the remaining Appellees in this action filed
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994). The record does not contain a
transcript of Appellant's jury trial. 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. Local R. 10(c). Appellants proceeding on appeal
in forma pauperis are entitled to transcripts at government expense
only in certain circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (1994). By fail-
ing to produce a transcript or to qualify for the production of a
transcript at government expense, Appellant has waived review of
the issues on appeal which depend upon the transcript to show
error. Powell v. Estelle, 959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
506 U.S. 1025 (1992); Keller v. Prince George's Co., 827 F.2d 952,
954 n.1 (4th Cir. 1987). We have reviewed the record before the
court and the district court's opinion and find no reversible
error. We therefore affirm the district court's order. 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