UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1846
RHAE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE SUNSHINE HOUSE, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:11-cv-00511-MOC-DCK)
Submitted: October 30, 2013 Decided: November 8, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rhae Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Frederick M. Thurman, Jr.,
SHUMAKER LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rhae Johnson appeals from the district court’s entry
of judgment for Defendant in accordance with the jury’s verdict.
Johnson brought suit alleging claims under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to
2000e-17 (West 2003 & Supp. 2012), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2006).
On appeal, Johnson claims that the judgment should be reversed
because: there was discrimination in the selection of the jury;
the district court erred in excluding certain evidence and in
admitting other evidence; the evidence is insufficient to
support the jury’s verdict; the district court erred in
instructing the jury, allocating burdens of proof, and referring
to evidence; a juror slept during the trial; and the jury failed
to explain its verdict. We affirm.
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)(1). Although Johnson provided transcripts of some
portions of the trial proceedings, she has not provided
transcripts of relevant portions of the proceedings supporting
her claims of discrimination in the jury selection and error in
the district court’s exclusion and admission of evidence.
Johnson also fails to establish a basis to have the transcripts
prepared at government expense. 28 U.S.C.A. § 753(f) (West 2006
2
& Supp. 2013). By failing to produce relevant transcripts or
qualify for the production of the transcripts at government
expense, Johnson has waived review of these issues. Powell v.
Estelle, 959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th Cir. 1992) (per curiam), abrog’n
on other grounds recog’d by Diaz v. Collins, 114 F.3d 69, 72
(5th Cir. 1997); Keller v. Prince George’s Cnty., 827 F.2d 952,
954 n.1 (4th Cir. 1987).
Turning to Johnson’s challenge to the sufficiency of
the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict, we note that Johnson
never filed a post-verdict motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) in
the district court. As a result, we are foreclosed from
considering her challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.
Ortiz v. Jordan, 131 S. Ct. 884, 892 (2011); Belk, Inc. v. Meyer
Corp., 679 F.3d 146, 155-56 (4th Cir. 2012); A Helping Hand, LLC
v. Baltimore Cnty., 515 F.3d 356, 369-70 (4th Cir. 2008).
Next, although Johnson claims that the district court
erred in instructing the jury, allocating burdens of proof, and
referring to evidence, she makes these claims in largely
conclusory fashion, without explanations as to how the court
erred or why the court’s errors warrant reversal of the
judgment. * Accordingly, we deem these issues abandoned. See 4th
*
With respect to Johnson’s claim that the district court
erred in failing to make a particular issue of law “clear” to
(Continued)
3
Cir. R. 34(b) (directing appealing parties to present specific
arguments in an informal brief and stating that this court’s
review on appeal is limited to the issues raised in the informal
brief); Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599,
607 (4th Cir. 2009) (limiting appellate review to arguments
raised in the brief in accordance with Fed. R. App. P.
28(a)(9)(A)); Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4
(4th Cir. 2004) (noting that appellate assertions not supported
by argument are deemed abandoned).
We also reject as wholly without merit Johnson’s
claims that the judgment should be reversed because the jury
failed to explain its verdict and because a juror slept during
portions of the trial. Further, insofar as Johnson is
challenging the effectiveness of her trial counsel based on
counsel’s failure to move to substitute the sleeping juror and
for a mistrial in light of the sleeping, claims of ineffective
assistance by counsel in a civil action are not sufficient to
raise a valid claim for relief on appeal and entitle Johnson to
no relief. Stanciel v. Gramley, 267 F.3d 575, 581 (7th Cir.
2001); Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8th Cir. 1988);
the jury, we reject this claim as without merit because Johnson
misstates the relevant law.
4
Sanchez v. U.S. Postal Serv., 785 F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th Cir.
1986) (per curiam).
Johnson fails to establish any basis for overturning
the district court’s judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment and deny as moot Johnson’s motion to suspend
disposition of the appeal pending filing of the transcript.
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
5