In this action asserting that prison officials violated his federally protected rights based on his race and religion, Arkansas inmate Brian Hughes appeals the district court’s 1 judgment entered upon an adverse jury verdict, and the denial of post-judgment relief. Following careful review of the record before us, which does not include a trial transcript, we agree with defendants that Hughes’s request for declaratory relief under Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc — 1(a)(1)—(2), was mooted by his transfer. See Smith v. Hundley, 190 F.3d 852, 855 (8th Cir. 1999). We also conclude that Hughes did not establish an abuse of discretion with regard to any discovery ruling, see In re Baycol Prods. Litig., 596 F.3d 884, 888 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review); that he did not preserve a claim of instructional error or otherwise establish the district court abused its discretion, see Lopez v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 690 F.3d 869, 875-76 (8th Cir. 2012) (to preserve alleged errors in jury instructions, party must make specific objection; if preserved, jury-instruction challenges are reviewed for abuse of discretion); and that his arguments concerning witness testimony cannot be meaningfully reviewed, see Kelly v. Omaha Housing Authority, 721 F.3d 560, 562 (8th Cir. 2013) (appellant must furnish reviewing court with all parts of proceedings below necessary for determination of validity of any claimed error), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1010, 187 L.Ed.2d 857 (2014); Schmid v. United Bhd. of Carpenters, 827 F.2d 384, 386 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.