Leticia Sanders v. Cleary Chapman, No. 18-2927 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Beam and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Plaintiff's claims are not subject to meaningful review because she failed to provide a transcript of the trial proceedings and the district court's judgment is affirmed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-2927 ___________________________ Leticia Sanders lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Cleary Chapman, Cpl., in his individual and official capacity as a Trooper for the Arkansas State Police (originally named as Chary Chapman); Erica Shelby, in her individual and official capacity as a Trooper for the Arkansas State Police lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: March 10, 2020 Filed: March 13, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Leticia Sanders appeals following the district court’s1 adverse entry of judgment on a jury verdict in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions and the record before us on appeal, we conclude that Sanders’s claims are not susceptible to meaningful review because she failed to provide a transcript of the trial proceedings. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(1) (discussing appellant’s duty to order transcript); Schmid v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 827 F.2d 384, 385-86 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (where pro se appellant did not order trial transcript, appellate court could not review claims of evidentiary error, judicial bias, or insufficiency of evidence). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable James M. Moody Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2-
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.
