Anthony Nelson appeals from the district court’s 1 entry of judgment upon an adverse jury verdict in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint.

Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions and the record before us on appeal, we conclude that Nelson’s claims *606 are not susceptible to meaningful review because he failed to provide a transcript of the trial proceedings. See Fed. R.App. P. 10(b)(1) (discussing appellant’s duty to order transcript); Schmid v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 827 F.2d 384, 385-86 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (where pro se appellant did not order trial transcript, appellate court could not review claim of judicial bias, evidentiary rulings, or sufficiency of evidence). We further conclude that his complaints about his counsel’s performance are not a basis for relief in this civil matter. See Taylor v. Dickel, 293 F.3d 427, 431 (8th Cir. 2002) (no constitutional or statutory right to effective assistance of counsel in civil case, even for plaintiff who had been appointed counsel; proper remedy is action for malpractice).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.