DocketNumber: 99-1059
Filed Date: 6/14/2000
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _____________ No. 99-1059NE _____________ Donald H. Davis, Jr., * * Appellant, * On Appeal from the United * States District Court v. * for the District of * Nebraska. Officer Frank Laskley; Officer * Jacque Points, * [Not To Be Published] * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: June 6, 2000 Filed: June 14, 2000 ___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Donald H. Davis appeals the District Court’s1 denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) motion for a new trial, which Davis had sought on grounds that the District Court wrongly excluded certain evidence. To the extent we are able to review Davis’s arguments on appeal without a trial transcript, see Fed. R. App. P 10(b)(1)(A) (appellant must order transcript); 8th Cir. R. 30A(b)(5) (same); Schmid v. United Bhd. 1 The Honorable William G. Cambridge, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. of Carpenters,827 F.2d 384
, 386 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (plaintiff’s failure to provide complete transcript renders it impossible to review evidence presented at trial), we conclude that no legal error resulting in a miscarriage of justice occurred at Davis’s trial. Thus, the Court did not abuse its discretion by denying a new trial, see Gray v. Bicknell,86 F.3d 1472
, 1480 (8th Cir. 1996) (authority to grant new trial is within discretion of trial court). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -2-