Rick Arthur v. Wal-Mart Stores ( 2000 )

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 99-4200
___________
Rick Arthur; Diana Arthur, *
*
Appellants, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Eastern District of Missouri.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: November 8, 2000
Filed: November 9, 2000
___________
Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit
Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Rick and Diana Arthur appeal the District Court’s1 denial of their motion for a
new trial in their diversity suit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Because the Arthurs have
not filed a trial transcript, we cannot determine whether the District Court abused its
discretion in denying their motion. See Ogden v. Wax Works, Inc., 214 F.3d 999, 1010
(8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review). We are thus precluded from conducting a
meaningful review. See Schmid v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, 827
1
The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
F.2d 384, 385-86 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (holding that where appellant did not file
transcript, reviewing court could not, inter alia, evaluate challenged evidentiary rulings
or weight of evidence), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1071 (1988). To the extent the Arthurs
are claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, no remedy is available in this proceeding.
See Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8th Cir. 1988) (suggesting that remedy for
ineffective assistance of counsel in civil case with private counsel is not new trial, but
suit against attorney for malpractice).
Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-2-