Blackwell v. SKO Management, Inc. , 64 F. App'x 725 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                                                           F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    MAY 29 2003
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk
    RAY T. BLACKWELL,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    No. 02-3300
    v.                                            (D.C. No. 01-CV-2326-JPO)
    (D. Kansas)
    SKO MANAGEMENT, INC.,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT           *
    Before BRISCOE , PORFILIO , and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.
    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
    this appeal.   See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
    therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
    Plaintiff Ray T. Blackwell worked as a parts driver for defendant SKO
    Management, Inc., an operator of automotive sales and services dealerships.
    *
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
    generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
    and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
    After the termination of his employment, he filed suit, claiming that SKO
    discharged him in retaliation for his complaints about discrimination, in violation
    of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e
    to 2000e-17.   1
    A magistrate judge conducted a bench trial, then entered judgment
    in favor of SKO.     2
    Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, appeals. We exercise jurisdiction
    under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     and affirm.
    Background
    In reaching his findings and conclusions, the magistrate judge discounted
    Mr. Blackwell’s credibility and credited SKO’s version of events. The magistrate
    judge found that SKO fired Mr. Blackwell after incidents occurring over a
    week-long period. On Tuesday, February 1, 2000, he had a confrontation with a
    supervisor about his delivery workload and his refusal to work in the warehouse.
    For the next two days, Mr. Blackwell notified SKO that he was sick and did not
    report to work. On Friday, Mr. Blackwell did not either call in sick or show up
    for work. However, he came in to pick up his paycheck. His supervisor testified
    1
    In his Complaint, Mr. Blackwell also asserted that he was subjected to
    racial harassment and wage discrimination. Mr. Blackwell does not appeal the
    entry of summary judgment on those claims.
    2
    The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge, pursuant to
    
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (c).
    -2-
    that this “was ‘the straw [that] broke the camel’s back.’” Mem. and Order at 7.
    He decided to fire Mr. Blackwell.
    On Monday, February 7, Mr. Blackwell came to work and handed his
    supervisor a letter alleging that he had been the victim of race discrimination in
    the workplace. Some hours later, SKO discharged Mr. Blackwell, telling him that
    he was fired for Tuesday’s insubordination and Friday’s unexplained absence.
    The magistrate judge determined that SKO’s actions were not motivated by
    Mr. Blackwell’s complaint of discrimination and, therefore, SKO did not
    unlawfully retaliate against him.
    Discussion
    In this appeal, Mr. Blackwell challenges the credibility of defendants’ trial
    witnesses and claims that the verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence.
    On appeal from a bench trial, we review the magistrate judge’s “findings of fact
    for clear error.”   EEOC v. Wiltel, Inc ., 
    81 F.3d 1508
    , 1513 (10th Cir. 1996).
    As our circuit rules make clear, such challenges require submission of the entire
    trial transcript for our review.   See 10th Cir. R. 10.1(A)(1) (“The appellant must
    provide all portions of the transcript necessary to give the court of appeals a
    complete and accurate record of the proceedings related to the issues on appeal.”);
    
    id.
     , 10.1(A)(1)(a) (“When sufficiency of the evidence is raised, the entire trial
    transcript must be provided.”).
    -3-
    Because Mr. Blackwell has submitted no transcript with the record on
    appeal, we are unable to consider his issues on appeal. Further, even if this court
    were to grant Mr. Blackwell’s belated motion to supplement the record with
    portions of the trial transcript, the problem would not be remedied. An
    appellant’s “failure to submit the entire trial transcript provides a . . . separate
    basis for rejecting [a] sufficiency of the evidence argument.”        Dilley v.
    SuperValu, Inc ., 
    296 F.3d 958
    , 963 n.2 (10th Cir. 2002);        see also Roberts v.
    Roadway Express, Inc ., 
    149 F.3d 1098
    , 1104-05 (10th Cir. 1998) (rejecting
    sufficiency of the evidence claim where only appellant submitted only excerpts
    of trial transcript).
    The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Appellant’s motion to
    supplement the record is DENIED.
    Entered for the Court
    Mary Beck Briscoe
    Circuit Judge
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-3300

Citation Numbers: 64 F. App'x 725

Judges: Anderson, Briscoe, Porfilio

Filed Date: 5/29/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023