Case Name: Eddie CHERIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-11-09
Citations: 351 F. App'x 792
Docket Number: No. 09-1586
Parties: Eddie CHERIS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 351
Pages: 792–793

Head Matter:
Eddie CHERIS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 09-1586.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 29, 2009.
Decided: Nov. 9, 2009.
Eddie Cheris, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholas Stephen Nunzio, Jr., Assistant General Counsel, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eddie Cheris appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment for the Appellee on Cheris' claims of negligence. The record does not contain a transcript of the April 24, 2009 hearing on the Appel-lee's motion for summary judgment. Cheris has not obtained a transcript or moved for a transcript at government expense. An appellant has the burden of including in the record on appeal a transcript of all parts of the proceedings material to the issues raised on appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 10(b); 4th Cir. R. 10(c). An appellant proceeding on appeal in for-ma pauperis is entitled to transcripts at government expense only if the trial judge or a circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous but presents a substantial question. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (2006). We have reviewed the record including the affidavits, motions, and exhibits and conclude that no error appears on the record before us and Cheris does not present a substantial question on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 753(f). We therefore affirm the district court's order. 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.