Katrina Okoli v. Mayor & City Council Baltimore

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:06-cv-03025-WMN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999377039]. Mailed to: Katrina Okoli. [12-2174]

Appeal: 12-2174

Doc: 24

Filed: 06/17/2014

Pg: 1 of 5

ON REHEARING
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2174

KATRINA OKOLI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
THE CITY OF BALTIMORE; JOHN P. STEWART, Executive Director;
MARTIN O’MALLEY, Mayor; MICHAEL R. ENRIGHT, 1st Deputy
Mayor; COLM O’COMARTUN, Special Assistant; COMMISSION ON
AGING & RETIREMENT ED. (CARE),
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:06-cv-03025-WMN)

Submitted:

November 22, 2013

Decided:

Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

June 17, 2014

Appeal: 12-2174

Doc: 24

Filed: 06/17/2014

Pg: 2 of 5

Katrina Okoli, Appellant Pro Se.
Gary Gilkey, Assistant
Solicitor, Allyson Murphy Huey, BALTIMORE CITY DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 12-2174

Doc: 24

Filed: 06/17/2014

Pg: 3 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Katrina

Okoli

proceeded

to

trial

employment discrimination on three grounds.

on

her

claims

of

The jury found for

Okoli on her retaliation claim only, awarding her $60,000 in
nominal damages for that claim.

Thereafter, the district court

granted Defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law in
part, reducing Okoli’s nominal damages award to one dollar.

The

court also denied Okoli’s motion to reconsider the matter.

On

appeal, Okoli challenges the district court’s reduction of her
jury award and denial of her motion to reconsider.

For the

reasons that follow, we affirm.
Okoli

failed

to

submit

any

evidence

to

establish

compensatory or other economic damages that occurred as a result
of

Defendant’s

termination

of

her

employment.

Thus,

the

district court instructed the jury that, if it found for Okoli,
it

could

only

award

nominal

damages.

Despite

the

district

court’s clear instructions that a nominal damages was an award
of only one dollar, or other small sum, the jury awarded Okoli
$60,000. The district court therefore granted the Defendant’s
motion for judgment as a matter of law to reduce the award to
one dollar.
In
district

our

court

opinion

and

Government expense.

of

denied

March
Okoli’s

14,

2013,

motion

for

we

affirmed

transcripts

the
at

An appellant has the burden of including in
3

Appeal: 12-2174

the

Doc: 24

record

Filed: 06/17/2014

on

appeal

a

Pg: 4 of 5

transcript

of

all

parts

proceedings material to the issues raised on appeal.
App. P. 10(b); 4th Cir. R. 10(c).

of

the

Fed. R.

In our subsequent order of

June 4, 2013, we vacated our opinion by granting panel rehearing
to provide Okoli the opportunity to pay for the transcript and
supplement the record on appeal.

See I.O.P.-40.2 (providing

that, “[i]f a petition for rehearing is granted, the original
judgment and opinion of the Court are vacated”).
After

reviewing

the

submitted

transcript,

we

remain

unpersuaded that the district court erred in ruling that Okoli
was entitled to only nominal damages of one dollar.

Okoli does

not contest the fact that she entered no evidence to support the
jury’s award.

We review the grant of a motion for judgment as a

matter of law de novo, and view the facts in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party.

Sloas v. CSX Transp., Inc.,

616 F.3d 380, 392 (4th Cir. 2010).

We find no reversible error

and therefore affirm the district court’s order granting, in
part, Defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and the
order denying reconsideration of the matter.

See Okoli v. Mayor

& City Council of Balt., No. 1:06-cv-03025-WMN (D. Md. June 28,
2012; Sept. 25, 2012).
Accordingly,

we

affirm.

We

dispense

with

oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

4

Appeal: 12-2174

Doc: 24

Filed: 06/17/2014

Pg: 5 of 5

presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

5