IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-50168 _____________________

JORGE JUAREZ AYALA; RUBEN QUIROGA AYALA; JOSE HERRERA DAVILA; CARLOS SANCHEZ MORENO,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

ARNULFO GOMEZ, Sheriff, ET AL.,

Defendants, ARNULFO GOMEZ, Sheriff; FRED LUJAN, Deputy Sheriff; VICTOR MONTGOMERY, Detention Officer; ERNEST BUSTILLOS, individually and in his official capacity as Reeves County, Texas Deputy Sheriff/Jailer; ALFREDO CHAGOLLA MARTINEZ, individually and in his official capacity as Reeves County, Texas Deputy Sheriff/Jailer; DANNY NUNEZ, individually and in his official capacity as Reeves County Deputy Sheriff/Jailer; REEVES COUNTY, TEXAS,

Defendants-Appellees. _________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas _________________________________________________________________ February 10, 1997 Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the

district court abused its discretion by denying the plaintiffs’

motion for a new trial on the basis of an allegedly improper and

prejudicial statement made during defense counsel’s opening

argument. After reviewing the record submitted to this court, we

reject the appellants’ argument and affirm the judgment of the

trial court.

We assume that the statement complained of was improper;

however, a new trial is not warranted unless, “after considering

counsel’s trial tactics as a whole, the evidence presented, and the

ultimate verdict, the court concludes that ‘manifest injustice’

would result by allowing the verdict to stand.” Johnson v. Ford

Motor Co.,

(5th Cir. 1993). The responsibility

of providing an adequate record on appeal falls to the party

seeking review. Fed. R. App. P. 10. Having neglected to provide

a complete record to this court, the appellants have precluded a

thorough review of the entire trial proceedings and, therefore, we

are unable to conclude that the jury verdict works manifest

injustice as required by Johnson.

Furthermore, the trial judge included a curative statement in

the charge to the jury. The appellants neither proffered a

curative instruction nor objected to the jury charge as given;

thus, they cannot now complain that the curative efforts of the

trial court were inadequate. See Maldonado v. Missouri Pacific Ry.

Co.,

(5th Cir. 1986) (affirming district court’s denial of new trial stating that by “‘acquiescing in the court’s

corrective charge,’ defendant ‘got a chance to see the verdict and

then seek to overturn it’”).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court

is

A F F I R M E D.