UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

LINDA L. KENNEDY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DEAN CLIFTON, individually, and as

manager, agent, partner, shareholder

or director of Richard-Flagship

Services, Incorporated; DAN CLARK,

individually, and as manager, agent,

vice-president, partner, shareholder

and director of Richard-Flagship

Services Incorporated; STAN SISSON,

individually, and as manager, agent,

Human Resources Director, partner,

shareholder and director of RichardFlagship Services, Incorporated and

No. 99-1020

F. A. Richard & Associates,

Incorporated; FRANCIS A. RICHARD,

individually, and as manager, agent,

partner, shareholder and director of

Richard-Flagship Services,

Incorporated and F.A. Richard &

Associates, Incorporated; STEVE

JOHNSON, individually, and as agent,

president, chief executive officer,

partner, shareholder and/or director

of Richard-Flagship Services,

Incorporated and The Flagship

Group, Limited; ROBERT

O'SULLIVAN, individually, and as

agent, vice-president, partner,
shareholder and/or director of

Richard-Flagship Services,

Incorporated, and The Flagship

Group, Limited; THE FLAGSHIP

GROUP, LIMITED, a corporation doing

business in Virginia and as agent,

partner, owner, shareholder and

director of Richard-Flagship

Services, Incorporated; RICHARDFLAGSHIP SERVICES, INCORPORATED;

F A RICHARD & ASSOCIATES,

INCORPORATED, a Louisiana

corporation, doing business in

Virginia, and as an agent, partner,

owner, shareholder and director of

Richard-Flagship Services,

Incorporated,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.

Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge.

(CA-98-602-2)

Submitted: September 30, 1999

Decided: October 8, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

 2
COUNSEL

Linda L. Kennedy, Appellant Pro Se. Robert L. O'Donnell, Arlene F.

Klinedinst, Christopher Ambrosio, VANDEVENTER BLACK,

L.L.P., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Linda L. Kennedy appeals the district court's order dismissing her

civil action raising claims against her former employer and related

defendants. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Kennedy v. Richard-Flagship Serv., No. CA-98-602-2

(E.D. Va. Dec. 2, 1998).*

Kennedy raises some issues requiring review of the district court's

hearings held on July 30 and August 14, 1998. Kennedy has the burden of including in the record the transcripts and other parts of the

proceedings material to the issues raised on appeal. See Fed. R. App.

P. 10(b); 4th Cir. Local R. 10(c). Appellants proceeding on appeal in

forma pauperis are entitled to transcripts at government expense only

in certain circumstances. See 28 U.S.C.§ 753(f) (1994). By failing to

_________________________________________________________________

*Although the district court's order is marked as"filed" on December

1, 1998, the district court's records show that it was entered on the

docket sheet on December 2, 1998. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered

on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district

court's decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir.

1986).

 3
produce the transcripts or to qualify for the production of a transcript

at government expense, Kennedy has waived review of those issues

on appeal which depend upon the transcript to show error. See Keller

v. Prince George's Co., 827 F.2d 952, 954 n.1 (4th Cir. 1987).

We deny the motion to strike Kennedy's brief and 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

 4