Travis Watson v. England

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: September 1, 2023
• Docket: 23-6384
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6384 Doc: 16 Filed: 09/01/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6384

TRAVIS L. WATSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

OFFICER ENGLAND, f/k/a Ms. Felder,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:19-cv-00945-WO-LPA)

Submitted: August 29, 2023 Decided: September 1, 2023

Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Travis L. Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen E. Carroll, James Demarest Secor, III, GUILFORD COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6384 Doc: 16 Filed: 09/01/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Travis L. Watson appeals the district court’s judgment in favor of Officer England

on Watson’s claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The record does not contain a

transcript of the 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). By failing to produce a transcript or to qualify for the production of a transcript

at government expense, Watson 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). As no error appears on the record

before us, 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