Narrative Opinion Summary
Elsie O’Neal appeals a jury verdict in favor of her former employer, National Plastics Corporation, regarding her Title VII retaliation claim. The appeal is dismissed due to noncompliance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(9), which requires that the appellant's brief include specific contentions and supporting citations. O’Neal's brief lacks citations to the record or relevant case law, presenting only a narrative without a coherent argument challenging the jury's verdict. She claims she was denied a fair trial due to National Plastics allegedly obstructing document discovery but fails to substantiate this accusation with specifics or references to the trial record. Additionally, O’Neal did not order a transcript of the trial, preventing any assessment of the trial proceedings related to her claims. As a result, her arguments are deemed waived, and the appeal is dismissed.
Legal Issues Addressed
Consequences of Failing to Provide Trial Transcriptsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant's failure to order a trial transcript hindered the court's ability to review the trial proceedings and assess the claims of unfairness.
Reasoning: O’Neal did not order a transcript of the trial, preventing any assessment of the trial proceedings related to her claims.
Dismissal for Failure to Comply with Appellate Procedure Requirementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to include specific contentions and supporting citations in the brief, as required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(9).
Reasoning: The appeal is dismissed due to noncompliance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(9), which requires that the appellant's brief include specific contentions and supporting citations.
Waiver of Arguments Due to Lack of Specificity and Record Referencessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: O’Neal's arguments are considered waived because her brief does not provide sufficient details, citations to the record, or relevant case law to challenge the jury's verdict.
Reasoning: O’Neal's brief lacks citations to the record or relevant case law, presenting only a narrative without a coherent argument challenging the jury's verdict.