Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

S. Shane Smith appeals the district court’s entry of judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict at trial, its pre-verdict ruling at trial under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50, and its April 18, 2012 order affirming the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion to strike and adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant the summary judgment motion filed by Defendants Beck, Bennett, Bailey, Moon, Mitchell, Smith, Gore, and Lanier (“the moving Defendants”) in his civil rights action alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) and North Carolina law. On appeal, Smith challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the moving Defendants on his claims against them under the Eighth Amendment and for retaliation and its ruling denying his motion to strike. We have reviewed the record with respect to these challenges and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Smith v. Beck, No. 1:08-cv-00166-TDS-LPA, 2012 WL 1340766 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 18, 2012 & Dec. 19, 2013).

Smith also challenges the district court’s ruling at trial on the Rule 50 motion. Smith, however, has not produced a transcript of the trial. The appellant bears 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)(1). Although an appellant proceeding on appeal in forma pauperis may obtain a transcript at government expense in certain limited circumstances, see 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (2012), Smith paid the appellate filing fee and does not seek production of the transcript of the trial based on any inability to pay for it. By failing to produce the transcript or to qualify for the production of the transcript at government expense, Smith has waived review of this issue, which depends on the transcript to show error. Powell v. Estelle, 959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th Cir. 1992) (per curiam); Keller v. Prince George’s Cnty., 827 F.2d 952, 954 n. 1 (4th Cir. 1987).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We deny Smith’s motion to appoint counsel and 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.