Eddie Cheris v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

09-1586Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitNov 9, 2009

Full text

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1586
EDDIE CHERIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:08-cv-01108-LMB-IDD)
Submitted: October 29, 2009 Decided: November 9, 2009
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eddie Cheris, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholas Stephen Nunzio, Jr.,
Assistant General Counsel, WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT
AUTHORITY, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Eddie Cheris appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment for the Appellee on Cheris’ claims of
negligence. The record does not contain a transcript of the
April 24, 2009 hearing on the Appellee’s motion for summary
judgment. Cheris has not obtained a transcript or moved for a
transcript 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. See
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 if the trial judge or a
circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous but
presents a substantial question. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (2006). We
have reviewed the record including the affidavits, motions, and
exhibits and conclude that no error appears on the record before
us and Cheris does not present a substantial question on appeal
under 28 U.S.C. § 753(f). We therefore affirm the district
court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.