Case ID: f-appx_698/html/0115-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William John PETERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jack Richard PETERSON; Beaumont Companies, Inc., Defendants-Appellees, and Thomas Dennis Peterson; Thomas D. Peterson, LLC, Defendants.
    No. 17-1443
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: September 21, 2017
    Decided: October 3, 2017
    William John Peterson, Appellant Pro Se. Miriam Rose Epstein, Tania M. L. Saylor, PETERSON SAYLOR, PLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William John Peterson appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Peterson’s civil action. In its dispositive order, the district court explained that it granted the motion to dismiss for the reasons expressed at the motion hearing, but the record does not contain a transcript of that hearing. 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). By failing to produce a transcript of the motion hearing, Peterson 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). As no error appears on the record before us, we affirm the district court’s order. 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