S. Shane Smith v. Theodis Beck, No. 14-6096 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6096 S. SHANE SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THEODIS BECK, Secretary of Correction, North Carolina Department of Corrections, sued in his individual and official capacity; BOYD BENNETT, Director of Prisons, North Carolina Department of Corrections, sued in his individual and official capacity; STEVE BAILEY, Superintendent, Western Region Director, North Carolina Department of Corrections, sued in his individual and official capacity; ROGER MOON, Western Region Operations Manager, North Carolina Department of Corrections, sued in his individual and official capacity; DOUG MITCHELL, Superintendent (Retired), Craggy Correctional Center, North Carolina Department of Corrections, sued in his individual and official capacity; LEWIS SMITH, Lieutenant, Albemarle Correctional Institution, North Carolina Department of Corrections, sued in his individual and official capacity; EDITH POPE, Assistant Superintendent (former), Craggy Correctional Center, North Carolina Department of Corrections, sued in her individual and official capacity; GEORGE POPE, sued in his individual capacity; WANDA GORE, individually and in her official capacity as Unit Manager for the Albemarle Correctional Institution; LARRY LANIER, individually and in his official capacity as Assistant Unit Manager for the Albemarle Correctional Institution, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00166-TDS-LPA) Submitted: June 26, 2014 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit Judges, and July 1, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. S. Shane Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Yvonne Bulluck Ricci, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Edith Pope, Asheville, North Carolina; George Pope, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: S. Shane Smith appeals the district court s entry of judgment in accordance with the jury s verdict at trial, its pre-verdict ruling at trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, and its April 18, 2012 order affirming the magistrate judge s order denying his motion to strike and adopting the magistrate judge s recommendation to grant the summary judgment motion filed by Defendants Beck, Bennett, Bailey, Moon, Mitchell, Smith, Gore, and Lanier ( the moving Defendants ) in his civil rights action alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) and North Carolina law. On appeal, Smith challenges the district court s grant of summary judgment to the moving Defendants on his claims against them under ruling the denying Eighth his Amendment motion to and for strike. retaliation We have and its reviewed the record with respect to these challenges and find no reversible error. district Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the court. Smith v. Beck, No. 1:08-cv-00166-TDS-LPA (M.D.N.C. Apr. 18, 2012 & Dec. 19, 2013). Smith also challenges the district court s ruling at trial on the Rule 50 motion. transcript of the trial. Smith, however, has not produced a The appellant bears the burden of including in the record on appeal a transcript of all parts of the proceedings Fed. R. App. P. material 10(b); to 4th the Cir. 3 issues R. raised 10(c)(1). on appeal. Although an appellant proceeding on appeal in forma pauperis may obtain a transcript at government expense in certain limited circumstances, see 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (2012), Smith paid the appellate filing fee and does not seek production of the transcript of the trial based on any inability to pay for it. By failing to produce the transcript or to qualify for the production of the transcript at government expense, Smith has waived review of this issue, which depends on the transcript to show error. Powell v. Estelle, 959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th Cir. 1992) (per curiam); Keller v. Prince George s Cnty., 827 F.2d 952, 954 n.1 (4th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We deny Smith s motion to appoint counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
