NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 12

- 2634

___________ ABDUS SHAHID, Appellant

v. BOROUGH OF EDDYSTONE

____________________________________ On Appeal from the Un ited States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2

- 11

- cv - 02501 ) District Judge: Honorable Timothy J. Savage

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) November 2, 2012 Before: SCIRICA, JORDAN and GREENBERG , Circuit Judges (F iled : November 6, 2012 )

___________ OPINION OF THE COURT

___________ PER CURIAM Abdus Shahid , proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s order entering judgment in favor of the Borough of Eddystone (the “Borough”)

. For the reasons set forth below, w e will affirm. .2 I. In 2007, Shahid , a United States citizen and native of Bangladesh, bought a single

family dwelling located in the Borough . He rented it as a duplex to various tenants , but never obtained a certificate of occupancy (“COS”) as required by the Borough’s ordinance. In 2008, he received his first citation for failure to obtain a COS. During an inspection to determine whether a COS should issue, the Borough found twenty

- fiv e code violations and gave Shahid approximately six weeks to correct them and schedule another inspection. Shahid failed to arrange for another inspection and received a second citation for failure to obtain a COS. In 2010, h is property was inspected aga in. After f inding thirty

four code vio lations , the Borough posted a notice that the property was uninhabitable , and issued Shahid a third citation for failure to obtain a COS. Undeterred, Shahid continued to rent the property, prompting yet another inspe ction in 2011. In addition to finding twenty

- eight code violations and again posting uninhabitable notices, the Borough cited Shahid for failure to cut the grass and remove snow from his sidewalk. Shahid was convicted of violating the Borough’s ordinance s, as set forth in the citations. 1
Shahid then filed this civil rights actio n pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , claiming that the Borough discriminated against him on the basis of his race, national origin, and

1 After the Borough moved for summary judgment, the District Court determined that Shahid was barred by the He ck v. Humphrey and Rooker

- Feldman doctrines from challenging the validity of his convictions for violating the Borough’s ordinances. (Dkt. No. 27.) Shahid has not challenged that on appeal.3 religion, thereby violating his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Serv s . of N.Y.C.

II. , 436 U.S. 658 , 694

- 95 (1978)

. He alleged that the Borough’s actions were part of a scheme to prevent “people of Bangladesh origin” from living in a “ white area, ” (Dkt. No. 1, p. 2), and that the Borough enforced its laws against him and not against white property owners. After conducting a bench trial on Shah id’s discrimination claims , the District Court entered j udgment in favor of the Borough. Shahid appeals.

We have jurisd iction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291

. Shahid argues that the District Court’s order was based on incorrect findings of fact and should be reversed. In response, the Borough argues that Shahid’s appeal should be dismissed for failur e to make the trial tran script part of the record, or, alternatively, asks that we affirm the District Court’s entry of judgment in its favor because Shahid has not met his burden of proving that the District Court’s factual determinations were clearly erroneous. We will first address t he Borough ’s argument that Shahid’s appeal should be dismissed for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(b) , which requires an appellant to order a transcript of the parts of the District Court proceedings that he consider s necessa ry to his appeal

. Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(1) (A) . If an appellant
fails t o follow Rule 10(b) , we have recognized that Federal Rule of Appellate P rocedure 3(a)(2) permits us to dismiss the appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 3(a)(2) ; Horner Equip. Int’l , Inc. v. Seascape Pool Ctr., Inc. , 884 F.2d 89, 9 3 (3d Cir. 1989)

. However, d ismissing an4 appeal for failure to satisfy Rule 10(b) is disfavored. Id. at 93

. Before doing so, we must consider “whether the defaulting party’s action is willful or merely inadvert ent, whether a lesser sanction can bring about compliance and the degree of prejudice the opposing party has suffered because of the default

. ” Id

. (citing Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas.
Co. Prior to filing its brief, the Borough filed a motion to dismiss Shahid’s appeal for, among other things, fail ure to comply with Rule 10(b) . The Clerk issued an order denying the motion and granting the Borough leave to file a supplemental appendix containing the trial transcript. The Borough fail ed to do so. It is true that Shahid was on notice of Rule 10(b)'s requirements, but because the Borough declined the opportunity to supplement the record (and mindful of Shahid's pro se status), we cannot fairly say that the Borough wa s preju diced because of Shahid's failure to comply with a procedural rule. , 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984) ).

Therefore, we will not dismiss his appeal solely on that basis

. We turn now to the Borough’s argument that Shahid fails to establish that any of the District Court’s findings were clear ly erroneous. After a bench trial, the District Court found that the Borough “did not have a policy or custom of excluding people . . . based on race, religion, or national o rigin” and that it “did not discriminate against Shahid . . . .” ( Dkt. No. 30, p. 5.) The District Court determined that “Shahid’s testimony was not credible ” and that his statements “appear[ed] calculated to meet [his] burden of proof under Monell .” (Dkt. No. 31 , pp. 8

- 9. ) Apart from being inadmissible hearsay, certain o f Shahid’ s documentary evidence was also found to be fabricated

. ( Id. p. 9 n.13.) Because5 Shahid produced “no credible evidence” of discrimination, the District Court found that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were not violated and entered judgment in favor of th e Borough. ( Id. We review the District Court’s findings of fact for clear error. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a) ; p. 13.)

Newark Branch, NAACP v. City of Bayonne, N.J. , 134 F.3d 113, 120 (3d Cir. 1998)

. “To the extent that the District Court’ s conclusions rest ed on credibility determinations, our review is particularly deferential. ” Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am. , 609 F.3d 143, 156

- 57 (3d Cir. 2010) . Because credibility determinations are “quintessentially the province of the trial court,” we reject them only in “rare circumstances.” Dardovitch v. Haltzman Such rare circumstances are not present in this case. Shahid’s brief is replete with unsupported statements that the District Court’s decision was based on “incorrect facts.” Yet, he offers nothing substantive from the record below to support his assertions that the District Court’s factual findings and credibility determin ations were clearly erroneous.
We therefore defer to the District Court and will not disturb its findings on appeal. , 190 F.3d 125, 140 (3d Cir. 1999)

.

III. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of t he District Court entered May 23, 2012, will be affirmed.