Quincy Teeyon KETTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David AARON, Unit Manager, Lanesboro Correctional Institution; FNU McLaughlin, Sergeant, Lanesboro Correctional Institution; FNU Parker, Sergeant, Lanesboro Correctional Institution; Pert Team Prison Emergency Response Team, Lanesboro Correctional Institution; Nicholas Keegan; Terry Williamson; Jessica Martin; Joshua Russell, Defendants-Appellees.
Decided: October 26, 2018
Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Quincy Teeyon Ketter, Appellant Pro Se.
Quincy Teeyon Ketter appeals the district court's judgment following a jury trial in Ketter's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in Ketter's informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014). Ketter bears 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). Ketter's general allegations fail to demonstrate “a substantial question warranting the production of a transcript at government expense.” Williams v. Ozmint, 716 F.3d 801, 811 (4th Cir. 2013); see 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (2012). By failing to produce a transcript of either the jury trial or the pretrial motions hearing or to qualify for the production of those transcripts at government expense, Ketter 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 Cty., 827 F.2d 952, 954 n.1 (4th Cir. 1987). While no transcript is necessary for us to review the district court's grant of partial summary judgment on supervisory liability grounds, we conclude that the jury's verdict renders moot any claim of error on that basis. See Wilkins v. Montgomery, 751 F.3d 214, 226 (4th Cir. 2014); Hinkle v. City of Clarksburg, 81 F.3d 416, 420-21 (4th Cir. 1996). As no error appears on the record before us, we affirm the district court's order. We deny Ketter's request for appointment of counsel. 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.