Rudy Freddy Webb v. Richard Hale

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted September 11, 2023*
Decided September 12, 2023
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
No. 22-2105
RUDY FREDDY WEBB,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RICHARD HALE, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
No. 17-C-716
Lynn Adelman,
Judge.
O R D E R
Rudy Webb, a former Wisconsin prisoner, appeals the district court’s judgment
on a jury’s verdict in favor of correctional officers whom he sued under the Fourteenth
Amendment over a claim of excessive force. Because Webb did not provide us with a
trial transcript, we dismiss his appeal.
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 22-2105 Page 2
This case concerns the use of force during an escort at the Waukesha County Jail.
Webb brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Lieutenant Richard Hale and four
correctional officers for injuries he incurred to his wrist, legs, and back while they
escorted him to a cell where he could be monitored in accordance with the prison’s
suicide protocol. Webb’s excessive force claim went to a jury trial.
Before the start of the trial, the defendants filed a series of motions in limine, all
but one of which were unopposed. Webb, who was represented by counsel in the
district court, opposed only the defendants’ motion to preclude testimony over the
reasons why video recordings of the incident were not preserved. The court granted the
unopposed motions and reserved ruling on the video recordings. The court later ruled
—according to the appellees—that Lieutenant Hale could be questioned outside the
presence of the jury about his role in preserving the video evidence. The jury ultimately
returned a verdict for the defendants. Webb did not file any post-trial motions.
Webb’s brief on appeal touches upon many aspects of his proceedings, but we
understand him primarily to challenge the district court’s rulings on the defendants’
motions in limine. Webb, however, has not provided the relevant portions of the trial
transcript, as required when raising such a challenge on appeal. Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 10(b)(2) provides that, “[i]f 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.” Without a transcript, we are unable to evaluate the
court’s rulings, and therefore we cannot conduct a meaningful review of Webb’s
arguments. See Morisch v. United States, 653 F.3d 522, 529 (7th Cir. 2011).1 Regardless, we
note that Webb did not oppose seven of the eight motions in limine in the district court,
and on the eighth, the court eventually allowed Hale to testify about his role in the
decision-making process concerning the recordings. Also, to preserve an evidentiary
objection for appeal, Webb needed to “make an offer of proof or otherwise explain the
substance of the evidence he sought to present,” Henderson v. Wilkie, 966 F.3d 530, 535
(7th Cir. 2020); see also Fed. R. Evid. 103(a)(2), and he did not.
DISMISSED
1 Webb appears to be aware of his responsibility to supply relevant trial
transcripts, having already supplemented the record to include transcripts of the
parties’ opening and closing statements.

-- 2 of 2 --