William Peterson v. Jack Peterson, No. 17-1443 (4th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1443 WILLIAM JOHN PETERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JACK RICHARD PETERSON; BEAUMONT COMPANIES, INC., Defendants - Appellees, and THOMAS DENNIS PETERSON; THOMAS D. PETERSON, LLC, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00038-AJT-TCB) Submitted: September 21, 2017 Decided: October 3, 2017 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William John Peterson, Appellant Pro Se. Miriam Rose Epstein, Tania M. L. Saylor, PETERSON SAYLOR, PLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: William John Peterson appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Peterson’s civil action. In its dispositive order, the district court explained that it granted the motion to dismiss for the reasons expressed at the motion hearing, but the record does not contain a transcript of that hearing. An appellant has the burden of including in the record on appeal a transcript of all parts of the proceedings material to the issues raised on appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 10(b); 4th Cir. R. 10(c). By failing to produce a transcript of the motion hearing, Peterson has waived review of the issues on appeal that depend upon the transcript to show error. See generally Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2); Keller v. Prince George’s Cty., 827 F.2d 952, 954 n.1 (4th Cir. 1987). As no error appears on the record before us, we affirm the district court’s order. We 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 3

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.