Michael Cornelius v. John McHugh ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2094
MICHAEL CORNELIUS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN M. MCHUGH, Secretary of the Army,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (3:13-cv-01018-CMC)
Submitted: May 31, 2016 Decided: June 16, 2016
Before SHEDD, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Cornelius, Appellant Pro Se. Terri Hearn Bailey,
Assistant United States Attorney, Christopher Gibbs, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Cornelius appeals from the district court’s entry
of judgment for Defendant following a bench trial in his civil
action under the Whistleblower Protection Act and Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We affirm.
On appeal, Cornelius claims that the district court erred
in a host of ways at trial. 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). Cornelius has not
provided transcripts of relevant portions of the trial
supporting his arguments of error at trial. Cornelius also
fails to establish a basis to have the transcripts prepared at
government expense. 28 U.S.C. § 753 (2012). By failing to
produce relevant transcripts or qualify for the production of
the transcripts at government expense, Cornelius 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 Cty., 827 F.2d 952, 954 n.1 (4th Cir. 1987).
Cornelius’ remaining arguments of error by the district
court are made in largely conclusory fashion, without an
explanation as to how or why any such errors warrant reversal of
the district court’s judgment. Accordingly, we deem these
2
issues abandoned. See 4th 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 predecessor to Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(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).
Cornelius fails to establish any basis for overturning the
district court’s judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
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
3