Case Name: Clinton Cody BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald R. LACY, Dr.; Sharon Woolery, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-13
Citations: 217 F. App'x 372
Docket Number: No. 05-11462
Parties: Clinton Cody BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald R. LACY, Dr.; Sharon Woolery, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 217
Pages: 372–372

Head Matter:
Clinton Cody BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald R. LACY, Dr.; Sharon Woolery, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-11462
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 13, 2007.
Clinton Cody Brown, Pampa, TX, pro se.
Shanna Elizabeth Molinare, George Baxter Ward, IV, Office of the Attorney General Law Enforcement Defense Div., Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Clinton Cody Brown, Texas prisoner # 775240, appeals the district court's judgment entered in favor of the defendants following a jury trial of Brown's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. Brown alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by causing him to be exposed to and to contract tuberculosis from a fellow inmate.
On appeal, Brown contends that (1) the district court erred in refusing to permit him to read into the record, during cross-examination of defense experts, medical pamphlets and treatises and (2) the defense experts committed fraud and misrepresentation by testifying falsely regarding the relationship between tuberculosis and Mycobacterium Avium Complex, an avian disease. Brown has not provided a transcript of the trial or any pretrial hearing. The absence of transcripts prevents us from reviewing Brown's arguments concerning matters or rulings that occurred at transcribed proceedings. See Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 416 (5th Cir.1990).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.