UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6958

RICHARD THOMAS VESCUSO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

T. T. REDMAN; CAPTAIN HOLLOWAY; SERGEANT SPROUSE; SERGEANT DAWSON; SERGEANT R.S. JOHNSON; SERGEANT TALBERT; SERGEANT STONE; C/O IRVIN; C/O PAINTER; C/O CAMPBELL; C/O MATTOX,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

RON ANGELONE; L. M. SAUNDERS; L. R. DAY; JACK LEE; C/O COOK,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-903-R, CA-96-884-R)

Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 5, 1999

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Thomas Vescuso, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

2 PER CURIAM:

Richard Thomas Vescuso appeals the district court’s orders in

his excessive force suit, granting judgment as a matter of law to

most Defendants and entering the jury verdict in favor of the

remaining Defendants. The record does not contain a transcript of

the trial. Vescuso 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. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b); 4th Cir. Local

R. 10(c). Appellants proceeding on appeal in forma pauperis are

entitled to transcripts at government expense only in certain cir-

cumstances. See

(f) (1994). By failing to produce

a transcript or to qualify for the production of a transcript at

government expense, Vescuso has waived review of the issues on

appeal which depend upon the transcript to show error. Powell v.

Estelle,

(5th Cir. 1992); Keller v. Prince George’s

Co.,

, 954 n.1 (4th Cir. 1987). We have reviewed the

record before the court and the district court’s opinion granting

judgment as a matter of law and find no reversible error. We

therefore affirm the district court’s orders. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-

ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3