Tommy Radford v. T. S. Falls , 157 F. App'x 947 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 05-1324
    ___________
    Tommy L. Radford,                        *
    *
    Appellant,                 *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the
    * Eastern District of Arkansas.
    T. S. Falls, Lt., Varner Unit, ADC,      *
    *       [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellee.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: November 30, 2005
    Filed: December 6, 2005
    ___________
    Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    In this 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action, inmate Tommy L. Radford appeals the district
    court’s1 judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of Lieutenant Talbot Falls on
    Radford’s claim that Falls failed to protect him from an assault by another inmate. In
    the absence of a trial transcript, however, we cannot review Radford’s arguments
    about the sufficiency of the evidence, the propriety of evidentiary rulings, or the
    temporary substitution of a judge. See Meroney v. Delta Int’l Mach. Corp., 
    18 F.3d 1436
    , 1437 (8th Cir. 1994); Schmid v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners, 
    827 F.2d 1
    The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the
    Eastern District of Arkansas.
    384, 386 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam), cert. denied, 
    484 U.S. 1071
     (1988). As to the
    grant of Radford’s first and second appointed attorneys’ motions to withdraw, and the
    refusal of the court to appoint counsel a third time, we find no abuse of discretion on
    the record before us. See Swope v. Cameron, 
    73 F.3d 850
    , 851-52 (8th Cir. 1996)
    (standard of review and relevant factors). Finally, we do not consider the issues raised
    for the first time in Radford’s reply briefs, see Norwest Bank of N.D. v. Doth, 
    159 F.3d 328
    , 334 (8th Cir. 1998) (issues first raised in reply brief will generally not be
    considered), other than to observe that Radford’s ineffective-assistance claim does not
    support reversal in this civil action, see Glick v. Henderson, 
    855 F.2d 536
    , 541 (8th
    Cir. 1988).
    The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-1324

Citation Numbers: 157 F. App'x 947

Judges: Melloy, Magill, Gruender

Filed Date: 12/6/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024