Opinion
22-1076
06-30-2022
NATHANIEL CANNON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, Defendant-Appellee
Nathaniel Cannon, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Bader, Raleigh, North Carolina, Patrick Houghton Flanagan, CRANFILL SUMNER, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Catrina Celeste Creswell, KABAT, CHAPMAN &OZMER, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: June 28, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:18-cv-00657-FDW-DCK)
Nathaniel Cannon, Appellant Pro Se.
Steven Andrew Bader, Raleigh, North Carolina, Patrick Houghton Flanagan, CRANFILL SUMNER, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Catrina Celeste Creswell, KABAT, CHAPMAN &OZMER, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel Cannon appeals from the district court's final judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of Charter Communications on Cannon's failure-to-accommodate claim, brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12213. The record on appeal does not contain a transcript of the trial proceedings. An appellant has the burden of including in the record a transcript of all parts of the proceedings material to the issues raised on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 10; 4th Cir. R. 10. Upon application, 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). By failing to produce a transcript or to apply for the production of a transcript at government expense, Cannon has waived review of the issues raised on appeal that depend on the transcript to establish error. Fed. R. App. P. 10(b); Keller v. Prince George's Cnty., 827 F.2d 952, 954 n.1 (4th Cir. 1987).
We have reviewed the record before us and found no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. 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