Case Name: WASTE DISPOSAL LITIG., etc.; et al., Plaintiffs, United States of America, ex rel., John Q. Smith, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-23
Citations: 101 F. App'x 514
Docket Number: No. 03-31104
Parties: WASTE DISPOSAL LITIG., etc.; et al., Plaintiffs, United States of America, ex rel., John Q. Smith, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 101
Pages: 514–515

Head Matter:
WASTE DISPOSAL LITIG., etc.; et al., Plaintiffs, United States of America, ex rel., John Q. Smith, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 03-31104.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 23, 2004.
Rodney Nicholas Erdey, Denham Springs, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
David Mark Bienvenu, Jr., Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Phillips, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
John Q. Smith (Smith) filed a complaint on behalf of the United States against Dow Chemical Co. (Dow), alleging that Dow required him and other employees to dump hazardous chemical residue from railroad tank cars in an unauthorized manner in violation of state and federal law. The district court granted Dow's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
Smith argues on appeal that the district court erred in granting Dow's motion to dismiss. However, Smith has not provided a transcript of the record containing the reasons for the district court's judgment. Therefore, this court will not consider this issue. See Powell v. Estelle, 959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th Cir.1992); United States v. Dunham Concrete Prods., Inc., 475 F.2d 1241, 1251 (5th Cir.1973). Accordingly, Smith's appeal is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
The appellant is using the name "John Q. Smith" as an alias to maintain his anonymity.