Ward, et al v. Baton Rouge Neonatal

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
October 6, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 03-30449
Summary Calendar
_____________________
IN RE: COSSETTA WARD; DERRICK WARD,
Debtors.
COSSETTA WARD; DERRICK WARD,
Appellants,
versus
BATON ROUGE NEONATAL ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No.: 03-CV-188-A
_________________________________________________________________
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Cosetta and Derrick Ward appeal the judgment of the district
court affirming judgment of the bankruptcy court, which denied the
Wards a discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2) and (5), and
held that, as to Cosetta Ward, the debt to Baton Rouge Neonatal
Associates was non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). The
district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s judgment because it
was impossible for the court to determine whether the bankruptcy
court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous, inasmuch as the

-- 1 of 2 --

Wards failed to include a transcript of the trial in the bankruptcy
court in the record on appeal. The Wards argue that the district
court’s judgment was biased because it gave no weight to the their
trial testimony, and that the district court violated their rights
to due process and equal protection because it did not ascertain
why a trial transcript was not ordered -- they claim, for the first
time on appeal, that they lacked financial resources to pay for a
transcript.
Because a trial transcript was not made a part of the record
on appeal, it was impossible for the district court to give weight
to the Wards’ trial testimony. The district court’s failure to
inquire about the reason why the transcript was not part of the
record did not violate the Wards’ due process and equal protection
rights. The Wards did not seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis
or request a transcript at public expense.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court
is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons stated by the district
court.
A F F I R M E D.

-- 2 of 2 --