Case Name: Darnell Allen BROWDER, Plaintiff, Darryl Browder, Appellant, v. SPO CAM; Erin Costanzo; Hardy; Estate of Sean Wissink; City of Des Moines; Scarlett-# 4937, Appellees; Darnell Allen Browder, Appellant, Darryl Browder, Plaintiff, v. SPO Cam; Erin Costanzo; Hardy; Estate of Sean Wissink; City of Des Moines; Scarlett-# 4937, Appellees; Darnell Allen Browder; Darryl Browder, Appellants, v. SPO Cam; Erin Costanzo; Hardy; Estate of Sean Wissink; City of Des Moines; Scarlett-# 4937, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-11-12
Citations: 352 F. App'x 122
Docket Number: Nos. 08-2490, 08-2491, 08-2492
Parties: Darnell Allen BROWDER, Plaintiff, Darryl Browder, Appellant, v. SPO CAM; Erin Costanzo; Hardy; Estate of Sean Wissink; City of Des Moines; Scarlett—# 4937, Appellees. Darnell Allen Browder, Appellant, Darryl Browder, Plaintiff, v. SPO Cam; Erin Costanzo; Hardy; Estate of Sean Wissink; City of Des Moines; Scarlett—# 4937, Appellees. Darnell Allen Browder; Darryl Browder, Appellants, v. SPO Cam; Erin Costanzo; Hardy; Estate of Sean Wissink; City of Des Moines; Scarlett—# 4937, Appellees.
Judges: Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 352
Pages: 122–123

Head Matter:
Darnell Allen BROWDER, Plaintiff, Darryl Browder, Appellant, v. SPO CAM; Erin Costanzo; Hardy; Estate of Sean Wissink; City of Des Moines; Scarlett—# 4937, Appellees. Darnell Allen Browder, Appellant, Darryl Browder, Plaintiff, v. SPO Cam; Erin Costanzo; Hardy; Estate of Sean Wissink; City of Des Moines; Scarlett—# 4937, Appellees. Darnell Allen Browder; Darryl Browder, Appellants, v. SPO Cam; Erin Costanzo; Hardy; Estate of Sean Wissink; City of Des Moines; Scarlett—# 4937, Appellees.
Nos. 08-2490, 08-2491, 08-2492.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 6, 2009.
Filed: Nov. 12, 2009.
Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Darryl Browder and Darnell Browder appeal the district court's judgment dis missing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit upon an adverse jury verdict. For reversal, they revisit their complaint, challenge various evidentiary rulings, complain of other trial-related matters, and argue that certain defendants should not have been dismissed pursuant to the voluntary-dismissal motion of their appointed counsel (which we construe as an argument that counsel rendered ineffective assistance).
The Browders are not entitled to relief based upon any allegation that their counsel rendered ineffective assistance, see Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8th Cir.1988). We do not review issues that are raised for the first time on appeal, see Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir.2004); and given the limited record before us, which does not include a trial transcript, we are unable to provide meaningful review of the remaining issues raised in the Browders' appeal brief, see Fed. R.App. P. 10(b)(1); Schmid v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 827 F.2d 384, 386 (8th Cir.1987) (per curiam).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and we deny all pending motions on appeal.
. The Honorable Ross A. Walters, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).