Case Name: Jeffrey Lamont TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick ALLUOTTO; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-09
Citations: 370 F. App'x 802
Docket Number: No. 08-55227
Parties: Jeffrey Lamont TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick ALLUOTTO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 370
Pages: 802–803

Head Matter:
Jeffrey Lamont TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick ALLUOTTO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-55227.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed March 9, 2010.
Jeffrey Lamont Taylor, Soledad, CA, pro se.
Janet Bogigian, Esquire, Assistant City, Amy Field, Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, 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
Jeffrey Lamont Taylor appeals pro se from the district court's judgment for defendants following a jury trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion a district court's evidentiary rulings. Janes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 279 F.3d 883, 886 (9th Cir.2002). We dismiss the appeal.
We are unable to review the evidentiary determinations Taylor contests on appeal because he failed to file any relevant portions of the trial transcript or to designate a record on appeal. See Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th Cir.1991) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal for failure to provide relevant portions of trial transcript); Thomas v. Computax Corp., 631 F.2d 139, 143 (9th Cir.1980) (dismissing pro se appellant's appeal for failure to designate and prepare relevant portions of the record on appeal). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.