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UNPUBLISHED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: June 17, 2014
Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
PER CURIAM:
Katrina Okoli proceeded to trial on her claims of
employment discrimination on three grounds. 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 our opinion of March 14, 2013, we affirmed the
district court and denied Okoli’s motion for transcripts at
Government expense. An appellant has the burden of including in
3
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). 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
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5