___________ No. 95-4064 ___________ Pierre L. Weaver, * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * * v. * * Gary Grimes; Jodie Lemora, * * Defendants-Appellees, * ---------------- * * Pierre L. Weaver, * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Western District of Arkansas. * Jim Rush, Jail Administrator; * Robert Hammond, Deputy Jail * [UNPUBLISHED] Administrator; Deputy Sampson, * * Defendants-Appellees, * ---------------- * * Pierre L. Weaver, * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * * v. * * Gary Grimes, Sheriff of * Sebastian County; Jim Rush, Jail * Administrator; Jodie Lemora, * Nurse; Robert Hammond, * * Defendants-Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: February 5, 1997 Filed: February 12, 1997 ___________ Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM.

Pierre L. Weaver, an Arkansas inmate, appeals from an adverse judgment entered by the district court1 on a jury verdict in these consolidated actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On appeal, Weaver has neither identified any basis of alleged error by the district court, nor provided a trial transcript or requested one at government expense. As we thus cannot review the jury's verdict, we dismiss Weaver's appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2) (appellant urging finding or conclusion is unsupported by, or contrary to, the evidence shall include in record transcript of all such relevant evidence); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a) (appellant must identify issues on appeal); Carter v. Lutheran Med. Ctr., 87 F.3d 1025, 1026 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (dismissing pro se litigant's appeal because brief presented no question for appellate court to decide, because, inter alia, it did not identify any basis of alleged error by district court); cf. Branch v. Martin, 886 F.2d 1043, 1046 n.2 (8th Cir. 1989) (failure of pro se appellant to provide transcript precludes meaningful review and ordinarily will result in appeal's dismissal).

A true copy.

The Honorable Beverly R. Stites, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-2- Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.