DARDEN v. THE AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, 12-2473. (2013)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20130422074
Visitors: 9
Filed: Apr. 22, 2013
Latest Update: Apr. 22, 2013
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Alvin and Diane Darden appeal the district court's order entering judgment following a jury trial. The record does not contain a transcript of trial 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). By failing to produce a transcript or to qualify for
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Alvin and Diane Darden appeal the district court's order entering judgment following a jury trial. The record does not contain a transcript of trial 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). By failing to produce a transcript or to qualify for ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alvin and Diane Darden appeal the district court's order entering judgment following a jury trial. The record does not contain a transcript of trial 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). By failing to produce a transcript or to qualify for the production of a transcript at government expense, the Dardens have 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.
Source: Leagle
