William Peterson v. Jack Peterson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:17-cv-00038-AJT-TCB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000166646]. Mailed to: William Peterson. [17-1443]

Appeal: 17-1443

Doc: 16

Filed: 10/03/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1443

WILLIAM JOHN PETERSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JACK RICHARD PETERSON; BEAUMONT COMPANIES, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
THOMAS DENNIS PETERSON; THOMAS D. PETERSON, LLC,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00038-AJT-TCB)

Submitted: September 21, 2017

Decided: October 3, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William John Peterson, Appellant Pro Se. Miriam Rose Epstein, Tania M. L. Saylor,
PETERSON SAYLOR, PLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

Appeal: 17-1443

Doc: 16

Filed: 10/03/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 17-1443

Doc: 16

Filed: 10/03/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
William John Peterson appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’
motion to dismiss Peterson’s civil action. In its dispositive order, the district court
explained that it granted the motion to dismiss for the reasons expressed at the motion
hearing, but the record does not contain a transcript of that hearing. 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). By
failing to produce a transcript of the motion hearing, Peterson 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 Cty., 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

3