Following an adverse jury verdict on Arkansas inmate Danny Hooper’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action involving excessive-force and failure-to-intervene claims against two prison officials, Hooper appeals the district court’s 1 order denying his motion for a new trial. Hooper’s arguments on appeal involve the allegedly erroneous admission of testimony, but Hooper has not explained why this evidence was prejudicial, or how the district court abused its discretion in allowing the evidence or in denying his motion for a new trial. See Burris v. Gulf Underwriters *872 Ins. Co., 787 F.3d 875, 878, 880 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review); see also 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). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.