
USCA1 Opinion

	




        June 10, 1994           [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 93-2152                                   EDWARD GALLAGHER,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.              ANTHONY M. FRANK, POSTMASTER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                   [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                               Torruella, Cyr and Stahl,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Edward Gallagher on brief pro se.            ________________            Donald K. Stern,  United States  Attorney, and  Cheryl L.  Conner,            _______________                                 _________________        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per  Curiam.    Following  execution   of  a  settlement                 ___________            agreement in this Title  VII suit, plaintiff Edward Gallagher            sought  to disavow the agreement on the ground that his trial            attorney had  lacked authorization to settle the  suit on the            agreed terms.  After  conducting a status conference attended            by plaintiff  and counsel,  the district court  rejected this            claim,  finding that  plaintiff's  attorney  "had the  proper            authority  to  settle  his  case."   Plaintiff  now  seeks to            challenge this determination.   He voices no complaint as  to            the format of the conference and,  indeed, it readily appears            that  he was afforded "a  fair opportunity to  have his say."            Michaud v. Michaud, 932 F.2d 77, 81 (1st Cir. 1991).  Rather,            _______    _______            his cursory argument on appeal appears to be that the court's            finding was clearly erroneous.                 We are unable meaningfully to evaluate this claim on the            basis  of the record presented.  If the status conference was            recorded, plaintiff was obligated under Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)            & 11(a) to order  a transcript.  See, e.g.,  Valedon Martinez                                             ___  ____   ________________            v. Hospital  Presbiteriano de  la Communidad, Inc.,  806 F.2d               _______________________________________________            1128,  1135 (1st Cir. 1986) ("We have held repeatedly that we            will  not review a claim of error if the appellant has failed            to include  a transcript of the pertinent  proceedings in the            record on  appeal.").   Alternatively, if the  conference was            not recorded,  plaintiff could have prepared  a "statement of            the evidence" under Fed. R. App. P. 10(c) for approval by the                                         -2-            district  court.   See, e.g.,  Barilaro v.  Consolidated Rail                               ___  ____   ________     _________________            Corp., 876 F.2d 260, 263-64 (1st Cir. 1989).  In light of his            _____            failure  to pursue  either course,  "the consequences  of any            insufficiency  [in   the  record]   properly   fall  on   the            appellant."  Id. at 263.   On the basis of the  meager record                         ___            before  us, see, e.g., Silva  v. Witschen, ___  F.3d ___, ___                        ___  ____  _____     ________            n.9, No. 93-1720 (1st  Cir. 1994) (despite incomplete record,            appellate court reviews merits as record allows), we perceive            no basis for disturbing the district court's determination.                  Affirmed.                 _________                                         -3-
