Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02861/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02861-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David C. Larson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2861

___________

David C. Larson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

United States of America, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: August 2, 2006

Filed: August 18, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

David Larson, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s1

 adverse judgment

and denial of post-trial motions entered after a bench trial in this Federal Tort Claims

Act action arising out of a slip-and-fall accident at the Federal Prison Camp in

Duluth, Minnesota. Larson first challenges the denial of his post-trial motion for

relief from judgment arguing he has new evidence he was not allowed to present at

trial. However, Larson did not disclose the nature of any new evidence. Therefore,

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2), the district court did not abuse

Appellate Case: 05-2861 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2006 Entry ID: 2079782
-2-

its discretion by denying Larson’s motion. See Sellars v. Minota, 350 F.3d 706, 716

(8th Cir. 2003). 

Larson next challenges the district court’s factual findings; however, Larson

failed to provide a transcript on appeal or request one at government expense.

Therefore, we cannot review the district court’s factual findings or evidentiary

rulings. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(1) (appellant’s duty to order transcript); 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, 386 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam). As

his final challenge, Larson seeks reversal based on his counsel’s performance in this

civil case. Because there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil

case, there is, of course, no constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in

a civil case. See Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8th Cir. 1988).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2861 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2006 Entry ID: 2079782