Tommy Radford v. T. S. Falls

Eighth Circuit

Tommy Radford v. T. S. Falls

157 F. App'x 947

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedDecember 6, 2005

Docket05-1324

StatusUnpublished

This text of 157 F. App'x 947 (Tommy Radford v. T. S. Falls) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tommy Radford v. T. S. Falls, 157 F. App'x 947 (8th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, inmate Tommy L. Radford appeals the district court’s 1 judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of Lieutenant Talbot Falls on Radford’s claim that Falls failed to protect him from an assault by another inmate. In the absence of a trial transcript, however, we cannot review Rad-ford’s arguments about the sufficiency of the evidence, the propriety of evidentiary rulings, or the temporary substitution of a judge. See Meroney v. Delta Int’l Mach. Corp., 18 F.3d 1436, 1437 (8th Cir.1994); Schmid v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners, 827 F.2d 384, 386 (8th Cir.1987) (per curiam), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1071, 108 S.Ct. 1041, 98 L.Ed.2d 1004 (1988). As to the grant of Radford’s first and second appointed attorneys’ motions to withdraw, and the refusal of the court to appoint counsel a third time, we find no abuse of discretion on the record before us. See Swope v. Cameron, 73 F.3d 850, 851-52 (8th Cir.1996) (standard of review and relevant factors). Finally, we do not consider the issues raised for the first time in Radford’s reply briefs, see Norwest Bank of N.D. v. Doth, 159 F.3d 328, 334 (8th Cir.1998) (issues first raised in reply brief will generally not be considered), other than to observe that Radford’s ineffective-assistance claim does not support reversal in this civil action, see Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8th Cir. 1988).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, inmate Tommy L. Radford appeals the district court’s 1 judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of Lieutenant Talbot Falls on Radford’s claim that Falls failed to protect him from an assault by another inmate. In the absence of a trial transcript, however, we cannot review Rad-ford’s arguments about the sufficiency of the evidence, the propriety of evidentiary rulings, or the temporary substitution of a judge. See Meroney v. Delta Int’l Mach. Corp., 18 F.3d 1436, 1437 (8th Cir.1994); Schmid v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners, 827 F.2d 384, 386 (8th Cir.1987) (per curiam), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1071, 108 S.Ct. 1041, 98 L.Ed.2d 1004 (1988). As to the grant of Radford’s first and second appointed attorneys’ motions to withdraw, and the refusal of the court to appoint counsel a third time, we find no abuse of discretion on the record before us. See Swope v. Cameron, 73 F.3d 850, 851-52 (8th Cir.1996) (standard of review and relevant factors). Finally, we do not consider the issues raised for the first time in Radford’s reply briefs, see Norwest Bank of N.D. v. Doth, 159 F.3d 328, 334 (8th Cir.1998) (issues first raised in reply brief will generally not be considered), other than to observe that Radford’s ineffective-assistance claim does not support reversal in this civil action, see Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8th Cir. 1988).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 F. App'x 947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tommy-radford-v-t-s-falls-ca8-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack