Kisala v. Jenny Craig Weight

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: July 30, 1996
• Docket: 95-3136
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-3136

NSONSA KISALA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JENNY CRAIG WEIGHT LOSS CENTRES, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-95-520-A)

Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nsonsa Kisala, Appellant Pro Se. James N. Foster, Jr., MCMAHON & BERGER, St. Louis, Missouri, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the from the jury's verdict in favor of the

Defendant on his Title VII claim of sexual discrimination. In sup-

port of this appeal, he alleges several trial errors and requests

provision of a transcript at government expense to aid him in the development of issues raised by these errors. We find a transcript

to be unnecessary in determining the validity of Appellant's

asserted trial errors, but note that even were such a transcript

necessary, Appellant has failed to demonstrate a substantial

question warranting its preparation and provision at government

expense. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 753(f) (West 1995) (providing standard for provision of transcript at government expense); Maloney v. E.

I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 396 F.2d 939, 940 (D.C. Cir. 1967)

(explaining that appellant bears the burden of demonstrating a

substantial question), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1030 (1970). We

therefore deny Appellant's motion. We also find that none of Appel-

lant's allegations of error entitle him to either reversal of the

judgment or a new trial. Accordingly, we affirm the jury's verdict in favor of the Defendant.* We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-

terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

* We also deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel. 2 3