Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01488/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01488-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1488

___________

City of Kansas City, Missouri *

*

Appellee, *

*

David Bahner, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Housing & Economic Development *

Financial Corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee, *

*

Rosehill Gardens, *

*

Defendant, *

*

Miguel Tilley, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 14, 2007

Filed: December 21, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 07-1488 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2007 Entry ID: 3385051
1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable John

T. Maughmer, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

-2-

Miguel Tilley challenges the district court’s1

order denying his claim for federal

housing relocation benefits. We affirm.

 After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Tilley’s claim for

relocation benefits and personal property damages in this receivership action brought

by the City of Kansas City, Missouri (City), against Housing Economic Development

Financial Corporation (HEDFC). On appeal, Tilley challenges the district court’s

credibility determinations and evidentiary rulings. The City and HEDFC urge this

court to affirm and argue that Tilley’s failure to obtain a hearing transcript prevents

consideration of his arguments on appeal. Tilley’s reply brief attempts to introduce

new material and includes an untimely transcript request and an incomplete, unsworn

financial affidavit, and HEDFC has moved to strike it. 

Without a transcript of the hearing, this court cannot review the district court’s

factual findings or any issues involving witness credibility or evidentiary rulings. See

Van Treese v. Blome, 7 F.3d 729, 729 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam); Schmid v. United

Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 827 F.2d 384, 385-86 (8th Cir. 1987) (per

curiam). In any event, credibility determinations are within the exclusive domain of

the district court and are virtually unreviewable on appeal. See Chaganti & Assocs.

v. Nowotny, 470 F.3d 1215, 1222 (8th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 2977

(2007). Thus, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we deny Tilley’s

untimely and incomplete transcript request. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(1). The motion

to strike is denied as moot.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1488 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2007 Entry ID: 3385051