Ledesma v. Henderson

8 F. App'x 773
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided April 26, 2001·No. No. 00-15799; D.C. No. CV-92-01215-HRH·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Betty Ledesma appeals pro se the district court’s judgment following a bench trial in Ledesma’s action alleging employment discrimination based on race, religion and retaliation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we dismiss.

On appeal, Ledesma challenges the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of the defen[774] dant. Ledesma failed, however, to provide this court with a trial transcript. We may dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to provide this court with a transcript of the district court proceedings. See Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th Cir.1991) (per curiam); Thomas v. Computax Corp., 631 F.2d 139,141-42 (9th Cir.1980) (dismissing pro se appellant’s appeal for failure to provide a transcript). Without a transcript of the trial proceedings, this court cannot review Ledesma’s claims of error. Accordingly, we dismiss Ledesma’s appeal.

We decline to consider issues raised by Ledesma for the first time on appeal. See Int’l Union of Bricklayers v. Martin Jaska, Inc., 752 F.2d 1401, 1404 (9th Cm. 1985).

DISMISSED.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ledesma v. Henderson, 8 F. App'x 773 (9th Cir. 2001).

8 F. App'x 773 (Ledesma v. Henderson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Julie Thomas v. Computax Corporation
631 F.2d 139 (Ninth Circuit, 1980)
Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade
924 F.2d 167 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)