Opinion ID: 2045198
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: claim regarding due process violation

Text: Van Ackeren next claims that the district court erred in dismissing his petition because Van Ackeren's motion for summary judgment did not address the due process allegations contained in his petition. We note from the outset that Van Ackeren's motion for summary judgment is not contained in the record. The transcript in the instant case consists of Van Ackeren's petition in error, the Board of Parole's answer, and a journal entry entered by the district court. The journal entry in the record is, in actuality, a notation on the district court docket sheet which does not contain the judge's signature and reads, in total, as follows: Briefs submitted by the parties and reviewed by the court. The court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to annual parole hearings only if the board defers the case for later consideration. R.R.S. 83-1,111(4) 1994. In the case at bar the board denied parole and therefore plaintiff is not entitled to the relief requested and his petition is dismissed. (Emphasis in original.) The notation in the docket sheet does not reveal that the order was entered as a result of Van Ackeren's motion for summary judgment, nor does the order reveal upon what basis Van Ackeren sought summary judgment. The only place in the record that provides a hint of the nature of the proceedings is at line 8 of the 44-line bill of exceptions, where Van Ackeren's counsel offers an exhibit on behalf of [Van Ackeren's] motion for summary judgment. We have held on numerous occasions that it is incumbent upon the party appealing to present a record which supports the errors assigned, and absent such a record, the decision of the lower court is generally affirmed. Shuck v. Jacob, 250 Neb. 126, 548 N.W.2d 332 (1996); WBE Co. v. Papio-Missouri River Nat. Resources Dist., 247 Neb. 522, 529 N.W.2d 21 (1995). See Terry v. Duff, 246 Neb. 11, 516 N.W.2d 591 (1994). Meaningful appellate review requires a record that elucidates the factors contributing to the lower court judge's decision. Spittler v. Nicola, 239 Neb. 972, 479 N.W.2d 803 (1992). We cannot determine, after reviewing this record, whether (1) Van Ackeren's motion for summary judgment addressed the violation of due process allegations or (2) the district court considered such allegations at the time it dismissed Van Ackeren's petition. There is certainly no evidence in the record that establishes a violation of Van Ackeren's right to procedural due process, and, in any event, this court will not speculate upon the basis on which Van Ackeren sought summary judgment. We conclude that this assignment of error is without merit.