Jesse Carmon v. Mark Site

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00428-GBL-MSN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999607400]. Mailed to: Carmon. [15-6550]

Appeal: 15-6550

Doc: 14

Filed: 06/23/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6550

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.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:14-cv-00428-GBL-MSN)

Submitted:

June 18, 2015

Decided:

June 23, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jesse Carmon, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Francuzenko, Lee B.
Warren, COOK CRAIG & FRANCUZENKO, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6550

Doc: 14

Filed: 06/23/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Jesse Carmon appeals the jury verdict denying relief on his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.
transcript of the jury trial.

The record does not contain a

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.
P. 10(b); 4th Cir. R. 10(c).

Fed. R. App.

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. 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