Filed: Nov. 26, 2008
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS _ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT NOV 26, 2008 No. 07-15592 THOMAS K. KAHN Non-Argument Calendar CLERK _ D. C. Docket No. 05-00318-CV-CAR-5 MONTENEZ PROSSER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus TACO BELL, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia _ (November 26, 2008) Before ANDERSON, BLACK and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Montenez Prosser, pro
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS _ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT NOV 26, 2008 No. 07-15592 THOMAS K. KAHN Non-Argument Calendar CLERK _ D. C. Docket No. 05-00318-CV-CAR-5 MONTENEZ PROSSER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus TACO BELL, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia _ (November 26, 2008) Before ANDERSON, BLACK and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Montenez Prosser, proc..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOV 26, 2008
No. 07-15592 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00318-CV-CAR-5
MONTENEZ PROSSER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TACO BELL,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
_________________________
(November 26, 2008)
Before ANDERSON, BLACK and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Montenez Prosser, proceeding pro se, appeals the jury verdict in favor of
Taco Bell in his sex discrimination suit filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). On appeal, Prosser raises a
number of evidentiary challenges. Because Prosser did not file a trial transcript
with this court, we are unable to review in a meaningful way whether the alleged
errors occurred. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment in favor of Taco Bell.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10 requires an appellant to order trial
transcripts. Fed. R. App. P. 10(b). Pro se appellants, like counseled appellants,
“must provide trial transcripts in the appellate record to enable this court to review
challenges to sufficiency of the evidence.” Loren v. Sasser,
309 F.3d 1296, 1304
(11th Cir. 2002). “We review a ruling on the admissibility of evidence for an
abuse of discretion.” Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co., Inc.,
513 F.3d 1261, 1276
(11th Cir. 2008). “To gain a reversal based on a district court's evidentiary ruling,
a party must establish that (1) its claim was adequately preserved; (2) the district
court abused its discretion in interpreting or applying an evidentiary rule; and
(3) this error affected a substantial right.” Proctor v. Fluor Enters., Inc.,
494 F.3d
1337, 1349 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted). The challenging party bears the
burden of proving the error “probably had a substantial influence on the jury’s
verdict.”
Id. at 1352 (quotation omitted).
2
Prosser has not filed trial transcripts. If this court were to find the district
court erred with respect to one of the challenged pretrial evidentiary rulings, the
next question would be whether such error was harmless. This inquiry would
require an examination of the evidence presented at trial. Without the trial
transcripts we are unable to determine whether any of the alleged evidentiary errors
had a substantial influence on the jury’s verdict. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court.
AFFIRMED.
3