Katrina Okoli v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

UNPUBLISHED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: January 31, 2013 Decided: March 14, 2013
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 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.
On appeal, Okoli does not contest the fact that she
entered no evidence to support the jury’s award. We review
grant of a motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo, and
3
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 Baltimore, No. 1:06-cv-03025-WMN (D. Md. June 28,
2012; Sept. 25, 2012).
We further deny Okoli’s motion for transcripts at
Government expense. 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) (2006). Under 28 U.S.C. § 753(f), Okoli is not
entitled to a transcript at Government expense unless a circuit
judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous, but rather,
presents a substantial question. Rhodes v. Corps of Eng’rs of
U.S. Army, 589 F.2d 358, 359-60 (8th Cir. 1978) (per curiam);
see Jones v. Superintendent, Va. State Farm, 460 F.2d 150, 152
(4th Cir. 1972) (noting that “[i]t is settled in this circuit
that ‘an indigent is not entitled to a transcript at government
expense without a showing of the need, merely to comb the record
4
in the hope of discovering some flaw.’” (quoting United States
v. Glass, 317 F.2d 200, 202 (4th Cir. 1963))). On this record,
we conclude that Okoli has not made the requisite showing and
these arguments, in their current form, fail to provide
“specific issues and supporting facts and arguments raised on
appeal” as required by Local Rule. 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
Accordingly, we affirm. 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