Taylor v. Alluotto

370 F. App'x 802
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 9, 2010
Docket08-55227
StatusUnpublished

This text of 370 F. App'x 802 (Taylor v. Alluotto) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Taylor v. Alluotto, 370 F. App'x 802 (9th Cir. 2010).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jeffrey Lamont Taylor appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment for defendants following a jury trial in his 42 *803 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s evidentiary rulings. Janes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 279 F.3d 883, 886 (9th Cir.2002). We dismiss the appeal.

We are unable to review the evidentiary determinations Taylor contests on appeal because he failed to file any relevant portions of the trial transcript or to designate a record on appeal. See Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th Cir.1991) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal for failure to provide relevant portions of trial transcript); Thomas v. Computax Corp., 631 F.2d 139, 143 (9th Cir.1980) (dismissing pro se appellant’s appeal for failure to designate and prepare relevant portions of the record on appeal). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

DISMISSED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Julie Thomas v. Computax Corporation
631 F.2d 139 (Ninth Circuit, 1980)
Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade
924 F.2d 167 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
370 F. App'x 802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-alluotto-ca9-2010.