Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01324/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01324-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
T. S. Falls
Appellee
Tommy L. Radford
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas. 

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* [UNPUBLISHED]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

Appellate Case: 05-1324 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/06/2005 Entry ID: 1982506
-2-

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. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1324 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/06/2005 Entry ID: 1982506