Toni Hudson v. M.s. Carriers, Inc.

*The Hon. William C. O’Kelley, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia, sitting
by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 05a0302n.06
Filed: April 19, 2005
No. 03-6529
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
TONI HUDSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
M.S. CARRIERS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
Before: BATCHELDER and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges, and O’KELLEY, * District
Judge.
PER CURIAM. In this appeal, brought by plaintiff Toni Hudson pro se, we are asked
to overturn the district court’s order granting summary judgment to defendant M.S. Carriers,
Inc., the plaintiff’s former employer, in a Title VII action in which the plaintiff claimed that
she had been subjected to a hostile work environment and had been retaliated against
when she complained about it. The district court found that the incidents reported by the
plaintiff were not sufficiently severe and pervasive to rise to the level of sexual harassment
and also rejected the plaintiff’s retaliation claim, finding that one of the three adverse
employment actions of which the plaintiff complained had occurred prior to any protected

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-6529
- 2 -
action that she might have taken, that a second action had been rescinded, and that her
final termination was based on a legitimate business reason, i.e., the plaintiff’s excessive
absences from work.
On appeal, the plaintiff continues to complain summarily that she was the victim of
sexual harassment, but she has presented as her principal issue for our review the claim
that her trial counsel, who was appointed on a pro bono basis by the district judge after her
original attorney withdrew from the case, “failed to properly represent her.” As the
defendant points out, however, this issue is not reviewable on appeal. Moreover, the
plaintiff has not complied with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 30, because she has
not filed a Joint Appendix or secured an order permitting deferment of this obligation.
Failure to comply with Rule 30 constitutes a ground for dismissal of the appeal.
Under these circumstances, and after a review of the available record in this case,
we conclude that there is no legal basis upon which to reverse the district court’s judgment.
It is, therefore, AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --