Dulce Binoya v. Airlines Reporting Corporation, No. 16-1998 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1998 DULCE BINOYA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. AIRLINES REPORTING CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee.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 Before DUNCAN Circuit Judge. and AGEE, Circuit Decided: Judges, and March 3, 2017 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 claim. at judgment to her former employer on her retaliation The record does not contain a transcript of the hearing 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 issues raised on appeal. 10(c). the proceedings material to the Fed. R. App. P. 10(b); 4th Cir. R. An appellant proceeding on appeal in forma pauperis is entitled to transcripts at government expense only in certain circumstances. produce a 28 U.S.C. transcript or to § 753(f) qualify (2012). for By the failing production to 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 district court’s order. record before us, and we affirm the 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
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.
