Case Name: Jerman BARTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James JOHNSON, Sergeant, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-08-25
Citations: 582 F. App'x 185
Docket Number: No. 14-6379
Parties: Jerman BARTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James JOHNSON, Sergeant, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 582
Pages: 185–186

Head Matter:
Jerman BARTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James JOHNSON, Sergeant, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-6379.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 13, 2014.
Decided: Aug. 25, 2014.
Jerman Barton, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Thomas Dorsel, Caitlin Elizabeth Pierson, Sandra J. Senn, Senn Legal, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jerman Barton appeals the district court's order entering judgment on the jury's verdict in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action in favor of defendant James Johnson. Although there is no transcript of the jury trial in the record before us, we may authorize the preparation of a transcript at government expense where the litigant proceeds in forma pauperis and has shown the existence of a substantial question for appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (2012). After reviewing Barton's informal brief, we conclude that Barton has not raised a substantial question for appeal. See Ortiz v. Greyhound Corp., 192 F.Supp. 903, 905 (D.Md.1959) (defining substantial question). Accordingly, we deny his request for a transcript at government expense, see Rhodes v. Corps of Eng'rs of U.S. Army, 589 F.2d 358, 359 (8th Cir. 1978) (per curiam), and affirm the district court's order entering judgment on the jury's verdict. Barton v. Johnson, No. 1:13-cv-00415-JFA (D.S.C. filed Mar. 4, 2014; entered Mar. 5, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.