United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted April 14, 2015*

Decided April 14, 2015

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

No. 14-2715

JEREMY COOPER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JAMES CHANDLER and 

JAMES CHEATHAM,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

No. 13-cv-0730-MJR-SCW

Michael J. Reagan,

Chief Judge.

O R D E R

Jeremy Cooper, an Illinois prisoner, brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against two prison officers, who, he asserted, used excessive force against him in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment. The officers moved for summary judgment on 

grounds that Cooper failed to exhaust administrative remedies, see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), 

* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is 

unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

 
No. 14-2715 Page 2

and the district court granted that motion after conducting an evidentiary hearing, 

see Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739, 742 (7th Cir. 2008). Because Cooper has not supplied a 

transcript of that hearing, we cannot meaningfully review the district court’s ruling and 

thus dismiss the appeal. 

Cooper alleged that Officer James Chandler “threw” him into a steel sink located 

in the back of his cell, injuring his wrist and leg, and then Officer James Cheatham

punched him in the neck. At summary judgment the officers argued that Cooper had not 

exhausted his administrative remedies because he did not try to resolve the issue 

informally with his counselor before submitting a formal grievance, as required by 

Illinois grievance procedures. Cooper countered that administrators did not reply to 

numerous grievances that he submitted. A Pavey hearing was convened to resolve the 

fact dispute, after which the district judge discredited Cooper’s testimony and ruled in 

favor of the defendants. When Cooper then filed a notice of appeal, the deputy clerk of 

the district court informed him that he must request transcripts needed for appellate 

review within 14 days. Cooper apparently did nothing.

On appeal Cooper challenges the district court’s ruling, and maintains that

administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him because the prison ignored 

his attempts to properly complain about the assault. But we are unable to review the 

court’s decision because Cooper never provided a transcript of the Pavey hearing.

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(b)(2) states that appellants who seek to challenge 

a finding as unsupported by, or contrary to, the evidence, “must include in the record a 

transcript of all evidence relevant to that finding.” FED. R. APP. P. 10(b)(2). By failing to 

supply us with a transcript of the Pavey hearing, Cooper has forfeited any challenge to 

the district court’s ruling. See Morisch v. United States, 653 F.3d 522, 529 (7th Cir. 2011);

Gramercy Mills, Inc. v. Wolens, 63 F.3d 569, 573–74 (7th Cir. 1995); Syncom Capital Corp. v. 

Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th Cir. 1991); Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 415–16 (5th Cir. 

1990). And we will not give him additional time to secure the transcript because he has 

already been notified about his obligation to order one. See RK Co. v. See, 622 F.3d 846, 

853 (7th Cir. 2010); Learning Curve Toys, Inc. v. Playwood Toys, Inc., 342 F.3d 714, 731 n.10 

(7th Cir. 2003).

Cooper insists, nevertheless, that the limited record before us provides sufficient 

information to conclude that the district court’s credibility finding was clearly 

erroneous. He points to an entry in his “Cumulative Counseling Summary,” which, he 

says, contradicts testimony given by prison employees that he did not informally grieve 

the attack by Officers Chandler and Cheatham. But the conclusion Cooper asks us to 
No. 14-2715 Page 3

reach is not obvious from the face of the counseling summary. Without reviewing what 

was actually said at the hearing about the meaning of that entry in the summary, we 

cannot meaningfully determine whether the district court’s findings were implausible. 

See RK Co., 622 F.3d at 853; Smith v. United States, 293 F.3d 984, 987 (7th Cir. 2002). 

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.