Dulce Binoya v. Airlines Reporting Corporation

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999927128-2]. Originating case number: 1:16-cv-00102-AJT-IDD. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000034851]. Mailed to: Appellant. [16-1998]

Appeal: 16-1998

Doc: 16

Filed: 03/03/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1998

DULCE BINOYA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
AIRLINES REPORTING CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Anthony J. Trenga,
District Judge. (1:16-cv-00102-AJT-IDD)

Submitted:

February 6, 2017

Before DUNCAN
Circuit Judge.

and

AGEE,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

March 3, 2017

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dulce Binoya, Appellant Pro Se.
Meredith Renee Fleming
Bergeson, John Michael Remy, JACKSON LEWIS PC, Reston, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1998

Doc: 16

Filed: 03/03/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Dulce Binoya appeals the district court’s order granting
summary
claim.
at

judgment

to

her

former

employer

on

her

retaliation

The record does not contain a transcript of the hearing

which

the

district

court

granted

summary

judgment.

An

appellant has the burden of including in the record on appeal a
transcript

of

all

parts

of

issues raised on appeal.
10(c).

the

proceedings

material

to

the

Fed. R. App. P. 10(b); 4th Cir. R.

An appellant proceeding on appeal in forma pauperis is

entitled to transcripts at government expense only in certain
circumstances.
produce

a

28

U.S.C.

transcript

or

to

§ 753(f)
qualify

(2012).
for

By

the

failing

production

to

of

a

transcript at government expense, Binoya 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

Cnty.,

827

F.2d

952,

954

n.1

(4th

Cir.

1987).

Moreover, in her informal brief, Binoya points to no evidence
supporting

her

claim,

nor

does

she

present

more

than

a

conclusory argument for why judicial estoppel did not apply to
bar her claim, as found by the district court.

Accordingly,

although we grant Binoya leave to proceed in forma pauperis, no
error

appears

on

the

district court’s order.

record

before

us,

and

we

affirm

the

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2

Appeal: 16-1998

Doc: 16

materials

before

Filed: 03/03/2017

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3