MEMORANDUM **

Arizona state prisoner Stephen Swartz appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a bench trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force while he was a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, We affirm.

We are unable to consider Swartz’s contentions that the district court erred by entering judgment for Gallegos because Swartz failed to provide any portion of the *437 trial transcript. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2) (“If the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, the appellant must include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to that finding or conclusion.”); Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 168 (9th Cir. 1991) (dismissing appeal filed by pro se appellant for failure to comply with Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2)).

AFFIRMED.