Case Name: Raymond WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. RUMBLES, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-01-17
Citations: 505 F. App'x 664
Docket Number: No. 12-15278
Parties: Raymond WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. RUMBLES, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 505
Pages: 664–665

Head Matter:
Raymond WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. RUMBLES, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-15278.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 15, 2013.
Filed Jan. 17, 2013.
Raymond Wright, Wasco, CA, pro se.
Michael A. Terhorst, Beeson Terhorst, LLP, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee.
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Raymond Wright, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment following a jury trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant violated his Eighth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
We affirm the district court's judgment because Wright has failed to identify the relevant trial transcripts to enable us to review the alleged errors. On August 9, 2012, this court denied Wright's request for full transcripts of the trial without prejudice to renewal, showing which portions of the transcript are necessary to decide the issues presented. Wright has failed to respond. Accordingly, we are unable to review his contentions challenging the district court evidentiary rulings. See Fed. R.App. P. 10(b)(2); Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th Cir.1991) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal by pro se appellant for failure to provide relevant trial transcripts).
We do not address Wright's jury bias argument because Wright failed to raise it in his opening brief. See Liberal v. Estrada, 632 F.3d 1064, 1072 n. 6 (9th Cir.2011) (arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.