Case Name: Jesse CARMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark SITES, in his individual capacity; Georgi Hovhannisyan, in his Individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees, and Stacey Kincaid; Sergeant Levanathan, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-23
Citations: 607 F. App'x 315
Docket Number: No. 15-6550
Parties: Jesse CARMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark SITES, in his individual capacity; Georgi Hovhannisyan, in his Individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees, and Stacey Kincaid; Sergeant Levanathan, Defendants.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 607
Pages: 315–315

Head Matter:
Jesse CARMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark SITES, in his individual capacity; Georgi Hovhannisyan, in his Individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees, and Stacey Kincaid; Sergeant Levanathan, Defendants.
No. 15-6550.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 18, 2015.
Decided: June 23, 2015.
Jesse Carmon, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Franeuzenko, Lee B. Warren, Cook Craig & Franeuzenko, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jesse Carmon appeals the jury verdict denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. The record does not contain a transcript of the jury trial. An appellant has the burden of including in the record on appeal a transcript of all parts of the proceedings material to the issues raised on appeal. Fed. RApp. P. 10(b); 4th Cir. R. 10(c). An appellant proceeding on appeal in forma pauperis is entitled to transcripts at government expense only in certain circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (2012). By failing to produce a transcript or to qualify for the production of a transcript at government expense, Carmon has waived review of the issues on appeal that depend upon the transcript to show error. See generally Fed. RApp. P. 10(b)(2); Keller v. Prince George's Cnty., 827 F.2d 952, 954 n. 1 (4th Cir.1987). As no error appears on the record before us, we affirm the district court's order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this coui't and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.