[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
SEPT 14, 2006
No. 05-16579 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 00-01725-CV-T-23-TGW
RON MICKENS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
POLK COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
GLEN REYNOLDS, in his
individual capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(September 14, 2006)
Before BLACK, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ron Mickens, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s final judgment
in his suit against the Polk County School Board (“Polk County”) and Glen
Reynolds, alleging various claims of employment discrimination under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a)(1) and 2000e-
3(a), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12111, and
violations of his due process rights, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On
appeal, Mickens argues the following: (1) the district court erred in granting
Reynolds’s unopposed motion to dismiss Mickens’s conspiracy claim; (2) the
district court abused its discretion in denying Mickens’s motion for leave to amend
his complaint; (3) the district court erred in denying Mickens’s motion for recusal;
(4) the district court erred in granting Polk County’s motion for summary judgment
as to Mickens’s due process claims and ADA perceived disability claim, and (5)
the district court erred in denying Mickens’s motion in limine as an untimely
motion for summary judgment. After review, we conclude that Mickens’s
arguments lack merit.
Mickens also seeks to challenge the district court’s entry of judgment as a
matter of law against Mickens at to his ADA psychological examination claim and
his First Amendment retaliation claim, as well as the jury’s verdict in favor of Polk
County as to Mickens’s Title VII race discrimination and retaliation claims.
2
However, because Mickens failed to provide this Court with a complete record of
the evidentiary proceedings, we are unable to review Mickens’s claims on appeal
implicating the sufficiency of the evidence. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2) (placing
burden on appellant to ensure record on appeal contains all transcripts relevant to
sufficiency of the evidence issues raised by appellant); Loren v. Sasser, 309 F.3d
1296, 1304 (11 th Cir. 2002) (concluding that pro se appellant must also comply
with Rule 10(b)).1
AFFIRMED.
1
Polk County argues that we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s post-judgment
order entering judgment as a matter of law against Mickens as to his ADA psychological
examination claim because Mickens did not amend his notice of appeal to include this claim. We
disagree. Within thirty days of the district court’s entry of final judgment in favor of Polk County
on this claim, Mickens filed a pro se brief with this Court indicating his intent to appeal that order,
which was sufficient to confer jurisdiction. See Finch v. City of Vernon, 845 F.2d 256, 258-59 (11th
Cir. 1988) (concluding that court of appeals had jurisdiction to review the district court’s order
granting appellee’s post-judgment motion when, within thirty days, appellants filed a pro se brief
with this court clearly indicating their intent to appeal the order). However, as we have noted, we
are nonetheless unable to review Micken’s claims with regard to this order because Mickens failed
to provide complete transcripts.
3