Marc Stout v. Pope

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: September 14, 2023
• Docket: 22-1312
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1312 Doc: 7 Filed: 09/14/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1312

MARC STOUT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SGT. POPE,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-01081-AJT-IDD)

Submitted: June 28, 2023 Decided: September 14, 2023

Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marc Stout, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Notz, PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Prince William, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1312 Doc: 7 Filed: 09/14/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Marc Stout appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion to

dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment and dismissing the claims Stout raised

in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The record does not contain a transcript of the hearing

in which the district court expressed its rationale for dismissing Stout’s claims. 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,

Stout 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). And, in any event, the record makes clear that Stout’s claims

are meritless. Accordingly, 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