Tonda Smith v. Palmetto Denture Care PA ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-2432
TONDA SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PALMETTO DENTURE CARE PA
Defendant - Appellee,
and
CHRIS JUST, in her individual capacity; JIM FIELDS, in his individual capacity;
CHARLES D. MCNUTT, II, in his individual capacity,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Spartanburg. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (7:17-cv-01043-DCC)
Submitted: April 16, 2020 Decided: April 20, 2020
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tonda Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Andrew Lehrer, FORD & HARRISON LLP,
Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Tonda Smith appeals the district court’s judgment in favor of Palmetto Denture
Care, P.A., in Smith’s action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2018), based on the jury’s verdict. The record does not
contain a transcript of the trial proceedings. An appellant has the burden of including in
the record on appeal a transcript of all parts of the proceedings material to the issues raised
on appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 10(b); 4th Cir. R. 10(c). An appellant proceeding on appeal in
forma pauperis is entitled to transcripts at government expense only in certain
circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (2018). By failing to produce a transcript or to qualify
for the production of a transcript at government expense, Smith has waived review of the
issues on appeal that depend upon the transcript to show error. See generally Fed. R. App.
P. 10(b)(2); Keller v. Prince George’s Cty., 827 F.2d 952, 954 n.1 (4th Cir. 1987).
We have reviewed the record before us and found no reversible error. We thus
affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3