Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Kanzora Robinson v. Patrick Donahoe, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    18 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed two orders of the district court regarding Kanzora N. Robinson's appeals. The jury found that Robinson failed to prove she was terminated from her job in retaliation for discrimination complaints. The appeals court will not review credibility determinations by the jury. Additionally, Robinson failed to establish that her appeal presented a substantial question to warrant obtaining a trial transcript at government expense. Therefore, the appeals court affirmed both district court orders.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-10-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-1428

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed two orders of the district court regarding Kanzora N. Robinson's appeals. The jury found that Robinson failed to prove she was terminated from her job in retaliation for discrimination complaints. The appeals court will not review credibility determinations by the jury. Additionally, Robinson failed to establish that her appeal presented a substantial question to warrant obtaining a trial transcript at government expense. Therefore, the appeals court affirmed both district court orders.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    18 views3 pages

    Kanzora Robinson v. Patrick Donahoe, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed two orders of the district court regarding Kanzora N. Robinson's appeals. The jury found that Robinson failed to prove she was terminated from her job in retaliation for discrimination complaints. The appeals court will not review credibility determinations by the jury. Additionally, Robinson failed to establish that her appeal presented a substantial question to warrant obtaining a trial transcript at government expense. Therefore, the appeals court affirmed both district court orders.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 11-1428

    KANZORA N. ROBINSON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    PATRICK R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General of the United States,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    No. 11-1565

    KANZORA N. ROBINSON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    PATRICK R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General of the United States,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
    of South Carolina, at Columbia.
    Cameron McGowan Currie,
    District Judge. (3:09-cv-00208-CMC)

    Submitted:

    September 29, 2011

    Decided:

    Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    October 4, 2011

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Kanzora N. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.


    Michael Elston, UNITED
    STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Kanzora

    N.

    Robinson

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    orders dismissing her civil action following a jury trial and


    denying her motion to obtain a trial transcript at government
    expense.
    was

    The jury found that Robinson failed to prove that she

    terminated

    discrimination
    Civil

    Rights

    from

    her

    complaints,
    Act

    of

    employment
    in

    1964,

    violation

    as

    in
    of

    amended.

    retaliation
    Title

    In

    the

    VII

    of

    first

    the

    order

    appealed, Robinson disagrees with the jurys findings.


    not review credibility determinations on appeal.

    for

    We do

    United States

    v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 863 (4th Cir. 1996); see United States
    v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989) (holding that this
    Court is bound by jurys credibility determinations).
    second

    order

    appealed,

    Robinson

    fails

    to

    establish

    In the
    that

    her

    appeal was not frivolous but presents a substantial question.


    28

    U.S.C.

    753(f)

    (2006).

    Accordingly,

    we

    deny

    Robinsons

    motion for appointment or assignment of counsel and Appellees


    motion to dismiss appeal or for summary affirmance, and affirm
    both district

    court

    orders

    appealed.

    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

    You might also like