* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 12/20/96 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT HICKS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. DOUG NICHOLS, Creek County Sheriff, Defendant-Appellee, and
CREEK COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; GEORGE ELLIOTT, Deputy Sheriff; RON POWERS, Deputy Sheriff; OTHER UNKNOWN DEPUTIES of the Creek County Sheriff’s Office,

Defendants. No. 95-5126 (D.C. No. 93-C-549-K) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *** Honorable Arthur L. Alarcon, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designati on.

1 At the time of trial, all other claims had been dec ided. -2- Before PORFILIO, ALARCON, ** and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff commenced a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging, among other things, excessive force to ef fect his arrest. After the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant Doug Nicho ls, 1 plaintiff moved for postjudgment relief, requesting both judgment as a matt er of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 and a new trial pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. The district court denied relief, and this appeal followed. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. On appeal, plaintiff argues the district court erre d in failing to grant postjudgment relief because the jury’s verdict was contrary to the evidence. The district court denied judgment as a matter of law a fter determining the evidence presented to the jury was conflicting and a reasonable inference was possible that-3-

excessive force either was or was not used. The di strict court denied a new trial because the verdict was not clearly, decidedly, or overwhelming against the weight of the evidence. We review the denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo, construing evidence and inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Doan v. Seagate Tech., Inc. , 82 F.3d 974, 976 (10th Cir. 1996), petition for c ert. filed , 65 U.S.L.W. 3342 (U.S. Oct. 15, 1996)(No. 96-625). We review the district court’s denial of a motion for new trial under an a buse of discretion standard. Sheets v. Salt Lake County , 45 F.3d 1383, 1390 (10th Cir.), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 74 (1995). “We will reverse the denial of a motion for a new trial only if the trial court made a clear error of judgment o r exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances.” Id. at 1390-91 (quotation omitted). Under Fed. R. App. P. 10(a) and (b)(2), an appellant is charged with providing a sufficient record to review evidentiaryfindings or conclusions. The appellant must order and provide all portions of th e transcript necessary to give the court of appeals a complete and accurate record of the proceedings related to the issue on appeal. King v. Unocal Corp. , 58 F.3d 586, 587 (10th Cir. 1995)(citing 10th Cir. R. 10.1). Contrary to this clear mandate, plaintiff only ordered and submitted a transcript of the testimonyof two witnesses, even though he also cites to the testimony of another witness and refers to his own testimony2 The district court’s docket sheet indicates the exh ibits were returned to the

parties. -4- and that of yet another witness in his appellate br iefs. In addition, plaintiff failed to present any trial exhibits, despite citing to th em. 2 Without a full trial transcript and the trial exhibits, the evidentiary record here is insufficient to permit assessment of plaintiff’s claims of error, and we therefore must affirm. See McGinnis v. Gustafson , 978 F.2d 1199, 1201 (10th Cir. 1992)(stressing importance and mandatory nature of court rules gove rning provision and use of transcripts); Deines v. Vermeer Mfg. Co. , 969 F.2d 977, 979-80 (10th Cir. 1992); see also LaFollette v. Savage , 63 F.3d 540, 544-45, 546 n.3 (7th Cir.)(where appellant provided only part of trial transcript an d no trial exhibits, appellate court was unable to review denial of motions for ju dgment as matter of law or new trial), supplemented , 68 F.3d 156 (7th Cir. 1995); Woods v. Thieret , 5 F.3d 244, 245 (7th Cir. 1993)(court of appeals unable to review denial of motion for judgment as matter of law without trial transcript) . Plaintiff’s pro se status does not excuse him from complying with the applicable r ules. See Ogden v. San Juan County , 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 750 (1995); Nielsen v. Price , 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994).-5-

The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue f orthwith.

Entered for the Court

Arthur L. Alarcon Circuit Judge