UNPUBLISHED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 Decided: March 3, 2017
Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dulce Binoya appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment to her former employer on her retaliation
claim. The record does not contain a transcript of the hearing
at 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 the proceedings material to the
issues raised on appeal. 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 in certain
circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (2012). By failing to
produce a transcript or to qualify for the production 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 record before us, and we affirm the
district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3