Yvett C. Rudolph v. BUNCOMBE COUNTY GOVERNMENT; AMANDA STONE; MARTIN PHILLIPS, "Marty"; ANN LUNSFORD

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1413
YVETT C. RUDOLPH,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
BUNCOMBE COUNTY GOVERNMENT; AMANDA STONE; MARTIN PHILLIPS,
"Marty"; ANN LUNSFORD,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:10-cv-00203-MR-DLH)
Submitted: July 31, 2012 Decided: August 14, 2012
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yvett C. Rudolph, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Joseph Doughton, Amy
Lynn Rich, DOUGHTON & RICH, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Yvett Rudolph appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment in favor of Buncombe County Department
of Social Services, Amanda Stone, Martin Phillips, and Ann
Lunsford (collectively, “Appellees”) in Rudolph’s employment
discrimination suit. We affirm.
As a preliminary matter, we note that Rudolph’s
informal brief makes reference to the transcript of the summary
judgment hearing. This transcript has not been included in the
record on appeal. 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). Even assuming Rudolph properly sought
preparation of the transcript at government’s expense, we
conclude that she has not made the requisite showing, and
accordingly deny her request. See Liteky v. United States, 510
U.S. 540, 555-56 (1994); 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).
Turning to Rudolph’s substantive claims, she asserts
that the district court exhibited bias against her. However,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
this claim is, in essence, a reflection of Rudolph’s
dissatisfaction with the district court’s substantive rulings.
Rudolph’s pleadings and the available record — including the
court’s thorough and well-reasoned orders and opinion — provide
no basis for concluding that the district court or magistrate
judge exhibited any bias against Rudolph. See Liteky, 510 U.S.
at 555-56. As to Rudolph’s remaining arguments on appeal, we
have thoroughly reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of
summary judgment to Appellees and the imposition of costs.
We deny Rudolph’s motion to supplement the record. We
decline Appellees’ request to enjoin Rudolph from filing further
proceedings without permission. 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

-- 3 of 3 --