
    Michael REAPE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alexandro BERRIOS, 79th Precinct, Shield # 29758, in their Official Capacities as Employees of the City of New York Police, John Doe, Maurice Fyffe, P.O., Defendants-Appellees, City of New York, Raymond Kelly, Police Commissioner, Jessenia Gordillo, James Roe, P.O., Defendants.
    No. 11-2948.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 14, 2013.
    Michael Reape, pro se, Brooklyn, NY, for Appellant.
    Deborah A. Brenner, Senior Counsel (Kristin M. Helmers, of counsel, Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, on the brief) City of New York, New York, NY, for Appellees.
    Present: GUIDO CALABRESI, ROSEMARY S. POOLER and REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the appeal from the judgment of the district court is DISMISSED.

Appellant Michael Reape, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment, following a jury trial, dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 amended complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

Although Reape raises various issues related to the jury trial, he has not provided the transcripts from those proceedings. Under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 10(b), within 10 days after the filing of a notice of appeal, the appellant must either (1) order transcripts from any proceedings that are necessary to the appeal from the reporter and file such order with the district court; or (2) file a certificate stating that no transcript will be ordered. In the past, we have dismissed appeals of issues related to a jury trial where appellant failed to provide a trial transcript. See Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir.2000) (dismissing the portion of the appeal challenging post-trial findings because transcripts from those proceedings were not provided); Gayle v. Walker, 148 F.3d 214, 214 (2d Cir.1998) (dismissing pro se appeal without prejudice to reinstatement for failure to file transcripts). In those cases, we explained that the failure to provide relevant transcripts deprives us of the ability to conduct meaningful appellate review. See, e.g., Wrigkten, 232 F.3d at 120.

Here, Reape’s submissions to the court provide no basis for relief from judgment, and we are not inclined to speculate as to that possibility in the absence of any transcripts from relevant district court proceedings. Reape moved in the district court for free transcripts, but his motion was denied because the district court found that his appeal was not taken in good faith. He also moved for free transcripts in this Court, but his motion was denied because he had not demonstrated that his appeal presented any substantial questions to justify free transcripts under 28 U.S.C. § 753(f). However, this Court provided Reape the opportunity to obtain transcripts at his own expense from the district court and to file them with this Court, and gave him several extensions of time to file his appellate brief, two of which were because he had not obtained the trial transcripts. In these circumstances, given the lack of transcripts, Reape’s appeal from the jury verdict is DISMISSED.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is DISMISSED.  