
    Dennis Michael GIECK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R.J. DONOVAN, Warden; et al., Defendants, and Romero, Chief Medical Officer; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 10-55775.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
    
    Filed Nov. 2, 2011.
    Dennis Michael Gieck, pro se.
    Douglas E. Baxter, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Kristin Grace Hogue, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Dennis Michael Gieck, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment as a matter of law under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a) in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We dismiss.

We are unable to consider Gieck’s contention that the district court erred by granting defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law because Gieck failed to provide any portion of the trial transcript. See Fed. R.App. P. 10(b)(2); Hall v. Whitley, 935 F.2d 164, 165 (9th Cir.1991) (per curiam). To the extent that Gieck seeks to challenge the district court’s denial of production of transcripts at government expense, the district court did not abuse its discretion because Gieck did not explain the issues that he would raise on appeal. See McKinney v. Anderson, 924 F.2d 1500, 1511-12 (9th Cir.1991), overruled on other grounds by Helling v. McKinney, 502 U.S. 903, 112 S.Ct. 291, 116 L.Ed.2d 236 (1991) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion and noting that “[production of the transcript at government expense for an appellant in forma pauperis in a civil case is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 753 if a trial judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous and presents a substantial question”).

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     