United States v. William Mefford

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-1860
___________
Frank Lawshea, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Eastern District of Missouri.
Paula Phillips, Function Unit Manager; *
Timothy Holsten, Caseworker; Curt * [UNPUBLISHED]
Curtis; Thomas Waldrup; Keith Mays, *
Function Unit Manager, *
*
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: February 15, 2012
Filed: March 5, 2012
___________
Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Missouri inmate Frank Lawshea appeals following the district court’s entry1
of judgment upon an adverse jury verdict in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The only
matters properly before us are Lawshea’s challenges to the jury instructions, the
sufficiency of the evidence at trial, and the admission of certain evidence. See
The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the1
Eastern District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

Berdella v. Delo, 972 F.2d 204, 207-08 & n.6 (8th Cir. 1992). We cannot review the
sufficiency of the evidence or the challenged evidentiary rulings because Lawshea did
not provide a trial transcript and did not request preparation of a transcript at
government expense. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b); Schmid v. United Bhd. of
Carpenters and Joiners of Am., 827 F.2d 384, 386 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (pro
se appellant’s failure to order trial transcript made it impossible to evaluate
challenged evidentiary rulings or rule on weight of evidence). Based on the limited
record before us, we conclude no error is apparent in the jury instructions. See
Kaplan v. Mayo Clinic, 653 F.3d 720, 726 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny Lawshea’s pending
motions.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --