Raymond Garcia v. J. McClaskey
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [1000023623-2]. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-00093-LPA. Copies to all parties and the district court. . Mailed to: Raymond Garcia (Freddie Andaya). [17-6108]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
RAYMOND GARCIA, a/k/a Freddie Andaya,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
DETECTIVE J. P. MCCLASKEY, DET. CITY OF CONCORD POLICE
DEPARTMENT; DETECTIVE K. CHILDERS; DETECTIVE R. GONSALEZ;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DETECTIVE KELLY SEAGRAVES;
DETECTIVE ELIZABETH LOVE; DETECTIVE G. BACOTE; DETECTIVE J.
DAVIS; SHERIFF KEVIN AUTEN; DETECTIVE UVALDO RIOS,
Defendants - Appellees,
CITY OF CONCORD, NORTH CAROLINA; ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH
CAROLINA; CHIEF GUY SMITH,
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. L. Patrick Auld, Magistrate Judge. (1:12-cv-00093-LPA)
Submitted: July 20, 2017
Decided: July 24, 2017
Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pg: 2 of 4
Freddie Andaya, Appellant Pro Se. Torin L.
FURY, RLLP, Greensboro, North Carolina;
Attorney, Steven N. Baker, OFFICE OF
Greensboro, North Carolina; Kenneth Ray
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Fury, William L. Hill, FRAZIER HILL &
Lynne P. Klauer, Assistant United States
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Raynor, RAYNOR LAW FIRM, PLLC,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 3 of 4
Raymond Garcia appeals the magistrate judge’s orders * entering judgment in favor
of Defendants in Garcia’s action in which he alleged the use of excessive force during his
arrest. The record does not contain a transcript of the jury 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) (2012). By failing to produce
a transcript or to qualify for the production of a transcript at government expense, Garcia
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). Moreover, because Garcia’s informal brief does not challenge the
basis for the magistrate judge’s disposition, Garcia has forfeited appellate review of the
court’s orders. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (providing that review is confined to the issues
raised in the Appellant’s brief.); Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th
Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s judgment. We deny Garcia’s
motion for appointment of counsel, and we dispense with oral argument because the facts
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012).
Pg: 4 of 4
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?