Jeffrey Lamont Taylor v. Patrick Alluotto;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
LSS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEFFREY LAMONT TAYLOR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PATRICK ALLUOTTO; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-55227
D.C. No. 2: 02-cv-04629-CJC
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jeffrey Lamont Taylor appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment for
defendants following a jury trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive
FILED
MAR 09 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LSS/Research 08-55227 2
force. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of
discretion a district court’s evidentiary rulings. Janes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 279
F.3d 883, 886 (9th Cir. 2002). We dismiss the appeal.
We are unable to review the evidentiary determinations Taylor contests on
appeal because he failed to file any relevant portions of the trial transcript or to
designate a record on appeal. See Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167,
169 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal for failure to provide relevant
portions of trial transcript); Thomas v. Computax Corp., 631 F.2d 139, 143 (9th
Cir. 1980) (dismissing pro se appellant’s appeal for failure to designate and prepare
relevant portions of the record on appeal). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --