UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1233
KATHLEEN ARNOLD; TIMOTHY A. COTTEN,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
CITIMORTGAGE, INCORPORATED, Assignee; LEHMAN BROTHERS BANK,
F.S.B.; AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC; WELLS FARGO; CONGRESSIONAL
FUNDING USA, LLC; STEWART TITLE GROUP, LLC; MARTIN DENNIS;
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED;
RANDA SAMIR AZZAM, Substitute Trustee; DANIEL J.
PESACHOWITZ; SAMUEL I. WHITE,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:07-
cv-02617-RWT)
Submitted: November 2, 2010 Decided: November 15, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kathleen Arnold; Timothy A. Cotten, Appellants Pro Se. Bruce
Edward Alexander, David M. Souders, Sandra B. Vipond, WEINER,
BRODSKY, SIDMAN & KIDER, PC, Washington, D.C.; Glenn Cline,
BALLARD SPAHR, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Bruce Edward Covahey,
Mark S. Devan, COVAHEY, BOOZER, DEVAN & DORE, PA, Towson,
Maryland; for Appellees. Martin Dennis, Appellee Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Kathleen Arnold and Timothy A. Cotten appeal the
district court’s order granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss
their civil action. The record does not contain a transcript of
the hearing on Defendants’ motions. Appellants have 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(b). While appellants
proceeding on appeal in forma pauperis are entitled to
transcripts at government expense in certain limited
circumstances, see 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (2006), Arnold and Cotten
paid the appellate filing fee and neither has filed an
application for in forma pauperis status. By failing to produce
a transcript or to qualify for the production of a transcript at
government expense, Arnold and Cotten have waived review of the
issues on appeal that depend on the transcript to show error.
See Powell v. Estelle, 959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th Cir. 1992)
(per curiam); Keller v. Prince George’s Cnty., 827 F.2d 952, 954
n.1 (4th Cir. 1987). As no error appears on the record before
us, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3