Ledesma v. Henderson
This text of 8 F. App'x 773 (Ledesma v. Henderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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]*774dant. 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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
8 F. App'x 773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ledesma-v-henderson-ca9-2001.