22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T452,MEMORANDUM Randall Brown, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the jury verdict in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm. Brown failed to raise in his opening brief, and has therefore waived, any challenge to the district court’s judgment. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 , 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam) (“This court will not ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in appellant’s opening brief.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). To the extent that Brown seeks to challenge the jury’s verdict as being contrary to the evidence, we cannot review any challenge because Brown failed to include the relevant transcripts in the record of appeal as required by Fed. RApp. P. 10(b)(2). See Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th Cir.1991) (per curiam). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T484,

MEMORANDUM

Randall Brown, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the jury verdict in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

Brown failed to raise in his opening brief, and has therefore waived, any challenge to the district court’s judgment. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 , 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam) (“This court will not ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in appellant’s opening brief.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

To the extent that Brown seeks to challenge the jury’s verdict as being contrary to the evidence, we cannot review any challenge because Brown failed to include the relevant transcripts in the record of appeal as required by Fed. RApp. P. 10(b)(2). See Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th Cir.1991) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

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