Court Opinion

ID: 9840305
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-15 21:00:30.477429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:33.736689
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1312      Doc: 7        Filed: 09/14/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1312

        MARC STOUT,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        SGT. POPE,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-01081-AJT-IDD)

        Submitted: June 28, 2023                                    Decided: September 14, 2023

        Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Marc Stout, Appellant Pro Se.   Jeffrey Notz, PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY
        ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Prince William, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1312      Doc: 7         Filed: 09/14/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Marc Stout appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion to

        dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment and dismissing the claims Stout raised

        in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The record does not contain a transcript of the hearing

        in which the district court expressed its rationale for dismissing Stout’s claims. 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. R. App. 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). By failing to

        produce a transcript or to qualify for the production of a transcript at government expense,

        Stout has waived review of the issues on appeal that depend upon the transcript to show

        error. See generally Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2); Keller v. Prince George’s Cnty., 827 F.2d

        952, 954 n.1 (4th Cir. 1987). And, in any event, the record makes clear that Stout’s claims

        are meritless. Accordingly, 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 court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                         AFFIRMED

                                                      2