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

Status: Not Published

Linked as:

Text

UNPUBLISHED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: October 4, 2011

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 court's orders dismissing her civil action following a jury trial and denying her motion to obtain a trial transcript at government expense. The jury found that Robinson failed to prove that she was terminated from her employment in retaliation for discrimination complaints, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. In the first order appealed, Robinson disagrees with the jury's findings. We do not review credibility determinations on appeal. 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 jury's credibility determinations). In the second order appealed, Robinson fails to establish that her appeal was not frivolous but presents a substantial question.

28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (2006). Accordingly, we deny Robinson's motion for appointment or assignment of counsel and Appellee's 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