UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1043
JOHNNIE MAE ROBINSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PRESBYTERIAN WOUND CARE CENTER,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
JAN PICKETT, Nurse Practitioner; TAMMY HAY, MEMA Employee;
WENDY GEORGE, Manager for Meridian Health Care,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:07-cv-00021-FDW-DCK)
Submitted: September 3, 2009 Decided: September 21, 2009
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Johnnie Mae Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Patrick Eaton Kelly,
Kathleen Kanable Lucchesi, JOHNSTON, ALLISON & HORD, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Johnnie Mae Robinson appeals the jury’s verdict in
favor of the Appellee on Robinson’s complaint of racial and age
discrimination and retaliation. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
To the extent that Robinson appeals the judgment based
on the proceedings of the jury trial or summary judgment
hearing, the record does not contain a transcript of those
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. See 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 if the trial judge or a circuit judge certifies that the
appeal is not frivolous but presents a substantial question. 28
U.S.C. § 753(f) (2006). Here, the district court declined to
certify Robinson’s appeal. We have reviewed the record
including the affidavits, motions, and exhibits, and conclude
that no error appears on the record before us and Robinson does
not present a substantial question on appeal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 753(f). We therefore find that she does not qualify for
transcripts at government expense. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
3
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4