John Rutherford v. Dale Anders ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6199
JOHN RUTHERFORD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CORPORAL DALE ANDERS; SERGEANT MELINDA HANEY, a/k/a Sergeant
Belinda; PFC DAVID EAVES,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
UNION COUNTY JAIL; ROBERT HINES, Administrator; D. HANEY,
Assistant Administrator; OFFICER DELL MITCHELL, a/k/a
Officer Dell,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:11-cv-03139-DCN)
Submitted: April 23, 2015 Decided: April 28, 2015
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Rutherford, Appellant Pro Se. Russell W. Harter, Jr.,
CHAPMAN, HARTER & HARTER, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
John Rutherford appeals the district court’s final judgment
entered upon a jury verdict in favor of Appellees in his civil
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012). The record does not
contain a transcript of the trial 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) (2012). By failing to produce a transcript
or to qualify for the production of a transcript at government
expense, Rutherford has waived review of the issues on appeal
that depend upon the transcript to show error. Fed. R. App. P.
10(b)(2); Keller v. Prince George’s Cnty., 827 F.2d 952, 954 n.1
(4th Cir. 1987).
As the record before us reveals that Rutherford did not
pursue any post-verdict motions pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 50(b) or Rule 59, he may not challenge the
sufficiency of evidence supporting the jury’s verdict. Belk,
Inc. v. Meyer Corp., U.S., 679 F.3d 146, 154 (4th Cir. 2012).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment and deny
his pending motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
3
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4