* After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that

oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the

record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted November 1, 2006*

Decided November 2, 2006

Before

Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge 

No. 06-2527

TOMMY E. LAMPLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DANIEL R. McBRIDE, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Indiana,

South Bend Division

No. 3:03 CV 338

Andrew P. Rodovich, 

Magistrate Judge.

O R D E R

Indiana inmate Tommy Lampley filed this pro se suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

bringing various Eighth Amendment and retaliation claims against employees of

the Indiana Department of Correction. Following a three-day bench trial, a

magistrate judge presiding with the parties’ consent entered judgment in favor of

the defendants. Lampley appeals, but because he has failed to provide us with a

trial transcript, we must dismiss his appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2).

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
No. 06-2527 Page 2

Lampley’s amended complaint alleged three incidents, each involving

different prison employees. First, Lampley claimed that prison employees were

deliberately indifferent to his safety on June 19, 2002 by failing to secure a

door—thereby allowing an inmate to attack him—and then by not treating his

injuries. Second, Lampley claimed that guards used excessive force and retaliated

against him for filing complaints and lawsuits when a guard bit his finger during an

altercation on June 28, 2002. Finally, Lampley claimed that on July 12, 2003,

guards retaliated against him when they removed—and did not return—personal

property from his cell after his cell was smeared with feces. In an order dated

August 18, 2006, the magistrate judge observed that he had rejected as incredible

virtually all of Lampley’s evidence on these claims.

Lampley argues on appeal that the judge should have believed his witnesses

rather than the defendants’. Lampley also argues in general terms that “exhibits

that were entered into evidence to back up [his] allegations . . . were ignored by the

Magistrate Judge during trial and during the decision at the end of trial.” 

We will not disturb a district court’s factual and credibility determinations

unless they are clearly erroneous. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a); Gaffney v. Riverboat

Servs. of Ind., Inc., 451 F.3d 424, 447 (7th Cir. 2006); Cerros v. Steel Techs., Inc.,

288 F.3d 1040, 1044 (7th Cir. 2002). But Lampley’s appeal faces another obstacle: 

we cannot conduct any meaningful appellate review of the trial record and the

district court’s findings because Lampley has not included a trial transcript in the

record. See Piggie v. Cotton, 342 F.3d 660, 663 (7th Cir. 2003); LaFollette v. Savage,

63 F.3d 540, 544 (7th Cir. 1995). Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(b)(2)

provides that “[i]f the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding or

conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, the

appellant must include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to that

finding or conclusion.” Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2); see Learning Curve Toys, Inc. v.

PlayWood Toys, Inc., 342 F.3d 714, 731 n.10 (7th Cir. 2003). Without the

transcript, “we are unable to evaluate the evidence submitted in this case.” 

Hotaling v. Chubb Sovereign Life Ins. Co., 241 F.3d 572, 581 (7th Cir. 2001)

(citation omitted).

Since all of Lampley’s arguments require us to evaluate the evidence

presented at trial, all of his arguments are forfeited by virtue of his failure to supply

us with a transcript, and we may therefore dismiss his appeal. See LaFollette, 63

F.3d at 544 (“dismissal is the appropriate course if the absence of a complete record

precludes meaningful appellate review”); Woods v. Thieret, 5 F.3d 244, 245-46 (7th

Cir. 1993) (dismissing appeal of pro se plaintiff for failure to provide transcript).

Lampley asked the district court to provide a transcript at public expense,

but that is not required if the district court believes the appeal is frivolous, as the

judge so certified here when he denied Lampley’s request. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f);
No. 06-2527 Page 3

United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317 (1976). And we agree with the judge’s

stated reasons that any challenge to the district court’s credibility determinations

would be frivolous because we do not re-weigh such determinations on appeal. 

Lampley did not renew his request to receive a free copy of the transcript before this

court or otherwise argue that the district court’s order regarding the transcript was

erroneous. 

Accordingly, his appeal is DISMISSED.