HALL v. TAYLOR (2021)

[Unpublished]

Earl Lee Hall, Jr., appeals the district court's adverse judgment following a bench trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.¹ Having reviewed the record, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hall's motions for appointment of counsel, see Patterson v. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845, 849-50 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard of review), or in addressing Hall's requests for discovery, see Robinson v. Potter, 453 F.3d 990, 994-95 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review). Because Hall has failed to provide a transcript of the trial proceedings, this court cannot meaningfully review his challenge to the district court's judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b) (discussing the appellant's duty to order transcripts); Van Treese v. Blome, 7 F.3d 729, 729 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (explaining that the district court's factual findings or evidence presented at trial could not be reviewed without a transcript); Schmid v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 827 F.2d 384, 386 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (explaining that, without a trial transcript, this court could not rule on the weight of the evidence). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Beth Deere, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

PER CURIAM.