*1 Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner Stephen Swartz appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a bench trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force while he was a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

*2 We are unable to consider Swartz’s contentions that the district court erred by entering judgment for Gallegos because Swartz failed to provide any portion of the trial transcript. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2) (“If 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.”); Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade , 924 F.2d 167, 168 (9th Cir. 1991) (dismissing appeal filed by pro se appellant for failure to comply with Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2)).

AFFIRMED.

2 15-15876

[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. * * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).