Case Name: Wendy ELORRIAGA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOOELE COUNTY, Deputy Spencer Turpin, Defendants-Appellees, Officer Steve Barrett, Officer Dave Aagard and John Does 1 Through X, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-01-06
Citations: 85 F. App'x 150
Docket Number: No. 03-4016
Parties: Wendy ELORRIAGA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOOELE COUNTY, Deputy Spencer Turpin, Defendants-Appellees, Officer Steve Barrett, Officer Dave Aagard and John Does 1 Through X, Defendants.
Judges: Before SEYMOUR, MURPHY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 85
Pages: 150–152

Head Matter:
Wendy ELORRIAGA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOOELE COUNTY, Deputy Spencer Turpin, Defendants-Appellees, Officer Steve Barrett, Officer Dave Aagard and John Does 1 Through X, Defendants.
No. 03-4016.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Jan. 6, 2004.
Wendy Elorriaga, Grantsville, UT, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Donald J. Purser, Donald Joseph Purser & Associates, Edward W. McBride, Jr., Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before SEYMOUR, MURPHY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
O'BRIEN, United States Circuit Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Wendy Elorriaga filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in the district court against Tooele County, Tooele County Sheriffs Deputy Spencer Turpin, and Grantsville Police Department officers Steve Barrett and Dave Aagard, alleging excessive force, cruel and unusual punishment, and illegal search and seizure in violation of the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Prior to trial, she settled her claims against Barrett and Aagard. Her claims against Tooele County and Turpin proceeded to a jury trial. At the close of Elorriaga's case, Tooele County and Turpin moved for a directed verdict, which the court granted as to Tooele County only. The jury found in favor of Turpin. Elorriaga appeals pro se the jury's verdict and the district court's judgment in favor of Tooele County and Turpin. We construe her argument as an insufficiency of the evidence claim. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
When reviewing a jury's verdict on appeal, our review is "limited to determining whether the record viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party contains substantial evidence to support the jury's decision." Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Southwestern Public Serv. Co., 104 F.3d 1205, 1212 (10th Cir.1997) (quotation and citation omitted). In conducting our review, we will not re-weigh the evidence, appraise credibility, or resolve conflicts in the evidence. Id. (citation omitted).
Because Elorriaga fails to cite to the record or any legal authority and has not provided us with a trial transcript, we have no way to meaningfully review the jury's verdict. See Fed. R.App. P. 10(b)(1) (appellant has duty to order transcript of relevant proceedings), and 28(a)(7), (9) (appellant's brief must contain a statement of facts and an argument, with citations to authorities and the record). The absence of the required transcript leaves us no alternative but to affirm the district court. Morrison Knudsen Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 175 F.3d 1221, 1238 (10th Cir.1999). See also McGinnis v. Gustafson, 978 F.2d 1199, 1201 (10th Cir.1992) ("[Fjailure to file the required transcript involves more than noncompliance with some useful but nonessential procedural admonition of primarily administrative focus. It raises an effective barrier to informed, substantive appellate review.").
Nevertheless, Elorriaga, represented by counsel, was provided the opportunity to present her case to a jury. Accordingly, absent evidence to the contrary, we assume the jury properly exercised its fact-finding authority in accordance with the legal instructions provided by the court. Elorriaga's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is GRANTED and the judgment in favor of Turpin and Tooele County is AFFIRMED.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
. Elorriaga also alleged various state law claims, which were dismissed per stipulation.
. We construe pro se pleadings liberally. Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, 318 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir.2003).