Daniele DEPAOLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. Rose DELANEY, Defendant-Appellee,
M.S. Byington, Officer; C.B. King, Lieutenant; D.J. Davis, Officer; T.W. Hall, Officer; Lieutenant Hughes; J.R. Ledford, Officer; B.K. McCray, Sergeant; John Short, Officer; T.B. Smith, Sergeant, Defendants. Daniele DePaolis, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.B. King, Lieutenant; Lieutenant Hughes; T.B. Smith, Sergeant; B.K. McCray, Sergeant; M.S. Byington, Officer; T.W. Hall, Officer; D.J. Davis, Officer; John Short, Officer; Dr. Rose Delaney; J.R. Ledford, Officer, Defendants - Appellees.
In these consolidated appeals, Daniele DePaolis appeals from the district court's orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) claims against Dr. Rose Dulaney as time-barred (No. 18-6476) and entering a final judgment following a jury verdict in favor of the remaining defendants on DePaolis’ excessive force claims (No. 18-7206). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
In No. 18-6476, DePaolis argues that the district court erred in dismissing the claims against Dr. Dulaney as time-barred. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. DePaolis v. King, No. 7:16-cv-00409-JPJ-RSB, 2018 WL 1377397 (W.D. Va. Mar. 19, 2018).
Turning to DePaolis’ appeal following the jury verdict against him, the record does not contain a transcript of the jury proceedings. 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) (2012). We have thoroughly reviewed DePaolis’ claims on appeal and conclude that he fails 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). Moreover, we will not reweigh the evidence or second-guess the jury's credibility determinations, United States v. Kivanc, 714 F.3d 782, 795 (4th Cir. 2013), and therefore will not disturb the jury's verdict on the excessive force claims. As no error appears on the record before us, we affirm the district court's judgment in No. 18-7206. 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 in the decisional process.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.