Court Opinion

ID: 9837972
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 21:00:51.789251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:32.776020
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6384      Doc: 16         Filed: 09/01/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6384

        TRAVIS L. WATSON,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        OFFICER ENGLAND, f/k/a Ms. Felder,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:19-cv-00945-WO-LPA)

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                   Decided: September 1, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Travis L. Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen E. Carroll, James Demarest Secor, III,
        GUILFORD COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6384      Doc: 16         Filed: 09/01/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Travis L. Watson appeals the district court’s judgment in favor of Officer England

        on Watson’s claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The record does not contain a

        transcript of the 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. 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, Watson 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). 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 court

        and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                        AFFIRMED

                                                     2