Dewey Venable v. Travis McCoy , 687 F. App'x 285 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6043
DEWEY KEITH VENABLE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAPTAIN TRAVIS MCCOY; SARGENT LARRY R. COLLINS; C/O S.
STEPHENS; L. VITATOE; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BENTLEY;
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DEEL; WALTER SWINEY; STEVEN
FRANKLIN; SGT. ERIC MILLER,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
WARDEN RANDALL MATHENA; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JAMES C.
MULLINS,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Pamela Meade Sargent, Magistrate Judge. (7:14-cv-00295-PMS)
Submitted: April 25, 2017 Decided: April 28, 2017
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dewey Keith Venable, Appellant Pro Se. Jeremy Brandon O’Quinn, O’QUINN LAW
OFFICE, PLLC, Wise, Virginia; Nancy Hull Davidson, Assistant Attorney General,
Richmond, Virginia; Rosalie Fessier, TIMBERLAKE, SMITH, THOMAS & MOSES,
PC, Staunton, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Dewey Keith Venable appeals the district court’s judgment, following a bench
trial, denying his Eighth Amendment claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012). Venable
also appeals the district court’s interlocutory rulings dismissing or granting partial
summary judgment in favor of certain Defendants on his § 1983 claims.
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See
4th Cir. R. 34(b); Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). We
have reviewed the district court’s rulings on the Defendants’ motions to dismiss and for
summary judgment in light of the arguments Venable raises and have found no reversible
error. We therefore affirm these rulings for the reasons stated by the district court. See
Venable v. McCoy, No. 7:14-cv-00295-PMS (W.D. Va. Sept. 23, 2015 & Jul. 6, 2016).
Venable also makes several conclusory claims of error during the bench trial, but
the record does not contain a trial transcript. 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) (2012). Venable has not produced a transcript and
fails to make the requisite showing to qualify for the production of a transcript at
government expense. Thus, Venable 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 Cty., 827 F.2d 952, 954 n.1 (4th Cir. 1987). No trial error appears on
the record before us.
3
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We deny Venable’s motions
for a transcript at government expense, for appointment of counsel, and to move the case
forward. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4