NOTE: SUMMARY OPINION, SEE NORTH DAKOTA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, RULE 35.1.
Per Curiam.
[¶ 1] Patrick McMorrow, acting pro se, appeals from the district court's issuance of a domestic violence protection order. McMorrow argues the district court abused its discretion because there was no evidence presented to meet the statutory burden showing he had committed a recent incident of actual domestic violence.
[¶ 2] An appellant has a duty, under N.D.R.App.P. 10, to provide this Court with a transcript sufficient to allow a meaningful and intelligent review of the alleged error. Leingang v. George, 1999 ND 32, ¶ 7, 589 N.W.2d 585. If the record on appeal does not allow for a meaningful and intelligent review of an alleged error, we will decline review of the issue. Bublitz v. Tsang, 2000 ND 100, ¶ 2, 617 N.W.2d 131. By failing to submit a transcript of the district court proceedings, McMorrow has failed to meet his burden of showing that the district court abused its discretion in issuing a domestic violence protection order. See id. at ¶ 3. The district court's issuance of a domestic violence protection order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).
[¶ 3] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
William A. Neumann
Mary Muehlen Maring
Carol Ronning Kapsner
Dale V. Sandstrom