Elsie Mayard v. Adam Siegfried

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: ROGER L. WOLLMAN, MICHAEL J. MELLOY and LAVENSKI R. SMITH (UNPUBLISHED) [3924104] [11-3472]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-3472 ___________ Elsie M. Mayard, Appellant, v. Adam P. Siegfried, Appellee. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: June 18, 2012 Filed: June 21, 2012 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Elsie Mayard appeals from the district court’s1 judgment based upon an adverse jury verdict, and from the district court’s denial of her motion for a new trial. She argues that the district court committed errors at trial, such as improperly excluding evidence, and that the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence. 1 The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. Appellate Case: 11-3472 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2012 Entry ID: 3924104 Because Mayard has not provided a trial transcript, this court cannot rule on the issues she has raised on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b); Schmid v. United Bhd. of Carpenters and Joiners of Am., 827 F.2d 384, 386 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (where pro se appellant did not order transcript of trial proceedings as required by Rule 10(b), court could not rule on issues concerning judge’s alleged bias, exclusion and admission of evidence, and argument that jury verdict was against weight of evidence).2 Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 2 We note, however, that the available information in the record--including the district court’s order denying Mayard’s motion for a new trial--strongly suggests that there is no merit to Mayard’s arguments on appeal. -2- Appellate Case: 11-3472 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2012 Entry ID: 3924104

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?