Unpublished Dispositionjanice M. Robertson, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Storer Communications, Defendant-appellee, 842 F.2d 333 (6th Cir. 1988)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 842 F.2d 333 (6th Cir. 1988) March 16, 1988

Before NATHANIEL R. JONES and RALPH B. GUY, Jr., Circuit Judges, and CONTIE, Senior Circuit Judge.


ORDER

This pro se plaintiff appeals the judgment of the district court entered pursuant to a jury verdict in an employment discrimination action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and related Michigan anti-discrimination statutes. She now moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, appointment of counsel and preparation of a transcript at government expense. Upon review of the record and the brief submitted by plaintiff, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).

Plaintiff, with the assistance of retained counsel, filed an action pursuant to both 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Michigan statutory law in which she claimed that defendant had improperly failed to give her a promotion and then terminated her employment solely upon the basis of her race and sex. After a two-day trial, however, a jury rendered a verdict in favor of defendant and the district court entered judgment accordingly. This appeal ensued.

Scrutiny of the brief submitted by plaintiff, who is now proceeding pro se, indicates that she is not challenging the merits of the jury's verdict from the perspective of the evidence adduced at trial, but is rather contending that that proceeding would have resulted in a different conclusion had it not been for her former attorney's failure to produce sufficient evidence for the jury to find in her favor. Claims of that nature, which essentially allege malpractice on the part of her trial counsel, however, are not an adequate basis for the appeal of the district court's judgment in defendant's favor. As a result, we conclude the issues presented in this appeal are frivolous.

Accordingly, the motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, appointment of counsel and preparation of a transcript at government expense are hereby denied and the final judgment entered June 19, 1987, is hereby affirmed. Rule 9(b) (4), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.