green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 5×
83.7 score
G Cite
cited 18× by 18 distinct cases, 2006–2024 · 6 courts→ Stable ·
…individuals are not subject to liability under title vii.
at p. 120
✓
cited 11× by 11 distinct cases, 2020–2025 ·
…individual defendants with supervisory control over a plaintiff may not be held personally liable under title vii.
at p. 120
⚠ not in text
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2005–2025 · 3 courts→ Stable ·
…individuals are not subject to liability under title vii
at p. 120
✓
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Churaman-Jadoo v. Daniels
individuals are not subject to liability under title vii
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Manigault v. Spry
the district court also properly dismissed the title vii claims against individual defendants, because individuals are not subject to liability under title vii.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Romano v. AC360 Media, LLC
individuals are not subject to liability under title vii.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Kamila v. Cornell University
individuals are not subject to liability under title vii
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Patterson v. County of Oneida, New York
individual defendants with supervisory control over a plaintiff may not be held personally liable under title vii
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bradshaw v. Walrath
When an appellant’s “failure to provide these transcripts deprives this Court of the ability to conduct meaningful appellate review,” we “dismiss the portion of the appeal challenging the district court’s post-trial findings and conclusions.” Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Calenzo v. Waste Management, Inc.
Claims Against Individual Defendants “To the extent that plaintiff asserts her Title VII claims against the individual defendants, such claims must be dismissed because ‘individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII.” Pitter, 2020 WL 8474858 , at *5 (quoting Patterson v. Cty. of Oneida, New York, 375 F.3d 206, 221 (2d Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Mandell v. Cty. of Suffolk, 316 F.3d 368, 377 (2d Cir. 2003) (citation omitted) (“[T]he district court's dismissal of [the] plaintiff's Title VII claims against [the defendant] in his personal Capa…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones v. International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers
Appx. 476, 477 (2d Cir. 2002) (affirming dismissal of ADEA claims), Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000) (affirming dismissal of Title VII claims).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Caesar v. Village of Mineola
Plaintiff’s Claims Against Mr. Rini Plaintiff cannot maintain his Title VII claims against Mr. Rini as “individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII.” Patterson v. County of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206, 221 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curium), and citing Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1313 (2d Cir. 1995) (“individual defendants with supervisory control over a plaintiff may not be held personally liable under Title VII”), abrogated on other grounds by Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998).)) Theref…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Syed v. NYCHHC Kings County Hospital
Similarly, “[i]ndividuals are not subject to liability under Title VII.” Buon v. Spindler, 65 F. 4th 64, 78 (2d Cir. 2023) (quoting Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curium)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Phoenix Fashion, Inc. v. Saadia Group LLC
Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Best v. Konica Minolta Supplies Manufacturing U.S.A., Inc.
Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fay v. City of Newburgh
See Mandell v. County of Suffolk, 316 F.3d 368, 377 (2d Cir. 2003); Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000); see also Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1313 (2d Cir. 1995) (“individual Defendants with supervisory control over the Plaintiff may not be held personally liable under Title VII.”), abrogated on other grounds by Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dawkins v. State University of New York at Cortland
Buon v. Spindler, 65 F.4th 64 , 78 (2d Cir. 2023) (quoting Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 [2d Cir. 2000]); see also Sears-Barnett v. Syracuse Cmty. Health Ctr., Inc., 531 F. Supp. 3d 522 , 535 (N.D.N.Y. 2021) (“The Second Circuit has left no doubt that ‘individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII.’”) (quoting Sassaman v. Gamache, 566 F.3d 307, 215 [2d Cir. 2009]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Harriram v. City University of New York
The Court considers each in turn. because “individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII.” Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cruz v. Sullivan County Government Center
See Mandell v. County of Suffolk, 316 F.3d 368, 377 (2d Cir. 2003); Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000); see also Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1313 (2d Cir. 1995) (“individual Defendants with supervisory control over the Plaintiff may not be held personally liable under Title VII.”), abrogated on other grounds by Burlington Ind. V.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Muniz v. The City of New York
See Guerra v. Jones, 421 F. App’x 15, 17 (2d Cir. 2011) (Title VII and ADEA); Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000) (Title VI); Fellah v. City Univ. of N.Y., No. 20 Civ. 6423 (JPC), 2022 WL 4619902 , at *7 & n.8 (S.D.N.Y.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ahmed v. Town of Oyster Bay
On March 13, 2023, as required by FRAP 10(b)(1), Plaintiffs ordered a portion of the trial transcript – specifically only from “[j]jury instructions to [v]erdict.” See ECF No. 125-3; see also FRAP 10(b)(1); Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000) (FRAP 10(b)(1) requires the appellant to order trial transcripts.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Buon v. Spindler
Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). “[I]ndividuals are not subject to liability under Title VII.” Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rivera v. Greater Hudson Valley Health System (GHVHS)
Individual Defendants' Liability in their Individual and Official Capacities Before reaching the substance of Plaintiff’s claims, the Court notes that “[n]either the ADEA nor Title VII allows for imposition of personal liability on the part of an individual, employee or supervisor.” See Mabry v. Neighborhood Defender Service, 769 F. Supp. 2d 381, 391 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (citing Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000)) (holding that individual defendants may not be personally liable under Title VIII); Parker v. Metro.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Small v. New York City Department of Education
First, the claims against Paul under Title VII must be dismissed because “individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII.” Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
LeClair v. Vinson
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
“Rule 10(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure imposes on the appellant the duty to order trial transcripts.” Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Roches-Bowman v. The City of Mount Vernon
“The filing requirement is analogous to a statute of limitations, barring all claims arising outside the 300-day period.” Caruana, 2022 WL 1192802 , at *2 (citing Russell v. County of Nassau, 696 F. Supp. 2d 213, 226 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)). 4 Evans also moves to dismiss the gender discrimination and hostile work environment claims under Title VII (Counts I and II), but the Court notes that these claims are not made against Evans, (see Compl. ¶¶ 50–55), probably “because individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII.” Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Small v. New York City Department of Education
DISCUSSION A. Small’s Title VII Claims As an initial matter, Small’s Title VII claims against Paul are dismissed with prejudice because “individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII.” Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam); Cayemittes v. City of New York Dep’t of Hous.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Zagerson v. New York City Department of Education
See Tolbert v. Smith, 790 F.3d 427, 434 (2d Cir. 2015).12 Under this framework, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of 11 Plaintiff appears to be asserting Title VII claims against Toomey; however, it is well established that “individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII.” Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Black v. Buffalo Meat Service, Inc. d/b/a Boulevard Black Angus a/k/a Black Angus Meats a/k/a Black Angus Meats & Seafood
Individual Liability under Title VII Individuals are not liable under Title VII, Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000) (Docket No. 106, Defs.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Acevedo v. Harvard Maintenance Company
The Second Circuit has held that “individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII.” Patterson v. Cty. of Oneida, N.Y., 375 F.3d 206 , 221 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Florence v. Seggos
A. Title VII Claim “Individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII.” Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Weber
Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (dismissing portion of appeal with prejudice where pro se appellant failed to provide this Court with the trial transcripts needed for meaningful appellate review).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gilmore v. Fitzmaurice
Nothing further is indicated on the District Court docket. 10 See Savard v. Marine Contracting Inc., 471 F.2d 536, 543 (2d Cir. 1972). 11 See Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (dismissing with prejudice the portion of an appeal challenging certain post-trial findings and conclusions “because the [pro se] plaintiff failed to provide this Court with the trial transcripts needed to conduct meaningful appellate review, despite two extensions of time and advice from this Court to move in the district court for trial transcripts”). 4 the motion.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Durand v. Excelsior Care Group LLC
Mem. at 12 (stipulating to dismissal of Title VII causes of action against individual defendant Emanuel).) It is well-settled in this Circuit that generally, “‘individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII.’” Patterson v. Cty. of Oneida, New York, 375 F.3d 206, 221 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000)); see also Arculeo v. On-Site Sales & Marketing, LLC, 425 F.3d 193 , 196 n.2 (2d Cir. 2005) (noting that “Title VII, while imposing liability on employers, does not impose liability on the supervisory personnel of employers”). requisi…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Curry-Malcolm v. Rochester City School District
FOR THE COURT: Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk Williams fail as a matter of law because only employers are liable under these statutes, see Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam); Guerra v. Jones, 421 F. App’x 15, 17 (2d Cir. 2011) (summary order).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Milord-Francois v. The New York State Office of the Medicaid Inspector General
Plaintiff also does not claim, and there is no evidence, that Daniels-Rivera “critici[zed] 7 “[I]ndividuals are not subject to liability under Title VII.” Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam) plaintiff’s performance in ethnically degrading terms,” or “[made] invidious comments about others in [Plaintiff’s] protected group” or provided “more favorable treatment of employees not in the protected group,” or engaged in any other activity that would give rise to an inference of discriminatory motivation.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Green v. New York City Transit Authority
Liability for Defendant Larrier Plaintiff’s individual claims against Defendant Larrier under Title VII cannot stand because “individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII.” Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Basora-Jacobs v. Palevsky
Individual Liability Title VII makes it unlawful to “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to h[er] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(a)(1). “[I]ndividuals are not subject to liability under Title VII.” Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Piccolo v. Top Shelf Provisions Co. Inc.
While dismissal of an appeal for the failure to obtain a trial transcript is not mandatory, see Savard v. Marine Contracting Inc., 471 F.2d 536, 543 (2d Cir. 1972), it is our practice to do so where the failure to provide the relevant transcripts "deprives this Court of the ability to conduct meaningful appellate review," Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brown v. Signorella
Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sanders-Peay v. New York City Department of Education
See Spiegel v. Schulmann, 604 F.3d 72, 79 (2d Cir. 2010) (finding that, “in the context of employment discrimination, the retaliation provision of the ADA . . . cannot provide for individual liability”); Patterson v. County of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206, 221 (2d Cir. 2004) (“[I]ndividuals are not subject to liability under Title VII.” 3 (quoting Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam))); Cherry v. Toussaint, 50 F. App’x 476, 477 (2d Cir. 2002) (summary order) (noting that “the ADEA precludes individual liability”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Scott-Adams v. H&M
See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b); Zomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1313 (2d Cir. 1995), abrogated on other grounds by Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998); Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (noting that individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII); Rice v. Scudder Kemper Investments, Inc., No. 01 Civ. 7078 (RLC), 2003 WL 1846934 , at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McGrath v. Fire Department of the City of New York
Compl. §] 250-54, 310-14.) As an initial matter, “individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII.” Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 119 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (citing Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1313 (2d Cir. 1995)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Knight
Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000). 2 We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, but “an erroneous evidentiary ruling warrants a new trial only when a substantial right of a party is affected, as when a jury’s judgment would be swayed in a material fashion by the error.” Warren v. Pataki, 823 F.3d 125 , 137–38 (2d Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted and emphasis added).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Knight
Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000). 2 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hines v. Veterans Outreach Center Inc.
See Gayle v. Walker, 148 F.3d 214, 214 (2d Cir. 1998) (dismissing pro se appeal without prejudice to reinstatement for failure to file, transcripts); cf. Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000) (dismissing portion of appeal with prejudice because relevant transcripts were not provided “despite two extensions of time”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Conforti v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed Patterson’s Title VII claims against the individual defendants.”) (quoting Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir.2000) (per curiam)); see also Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1313 (2d Cir.1995) (“[Ijndividual defendants with supervisory control over a plaintiff may not be held personally liable under Title VII”), abrogated on other grounds by Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 , 118 S.Ct. 2257 , 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones v. International Union of Operating Engineers
The Court will grant the Defendants’ motion in this réspect, as “ ‘individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII.’ ” Patterson v. County of Oneida, N.Y., 375 F.3d 206, 221 (2d Cir.2004) (quoting Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir.2000)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Espinosa v. McCabe
Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir.2000) (per curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Catalino Espinosa v. McCabe
Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lehman Bros. Holdings, Inc. v. Gateway Funding Diversified Mortgage Services, L.P.
Fire Servs., 757 F.2d 1357, 1358 (1st Cir.1985); Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir.2000) (per curiam); Alizadeh v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 910 F.2d 234, 237 (5th Cir.1990); United States v. Johnson, 584 F.2d 148 , 156 n. 18 (6th Cir.1978); Woods v. Thieret, 5 F.3d 244, 245-46 (7th Cir.1993); Brattrud v. Town of Exline, 628 F.2d 1098, 1099 (8th Cir.1980) (per curiam); Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169-70 (9th Cir.1991) (per curiam); King v. Unocal Corp., 58 F.3d 586, 587-88 (10th Cir.1995); Abood v. Block, We recognize that “[dismissal of an appeal for failure to comp…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ortiz v. City of New York
While dismissal of the appeal is not “mandatory” when the appellant fails to provide transcripts as required by Rule 10, see Savard v. Marine Contracting Inc., 471 F.2d 536, 543 (2d Cir.1972), it is our practice to do so if the failure to provide the relevant transcripts “deprives this Court of the ability to conduct meaningful appellate review,” Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119,120 (2d Cir.2000) (per curiam) (citing Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hagan v. City of New York
Title VII does not provide for individual liability. 8 See Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir.2000) (per cu-riam). 1.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James F. Wrighten
v.
Marie Glowski, Director of Special Education, Alan Paluck, Assistant Director of Special Education, and New London Board of Education
v.
Marie Glowski, Director of Special Education, Alan Paluck, Assistant Director of Special Education, and New London Board of Education
2000.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Nov 15, 2000.
232 F.3d 119
2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 29038
Published
Citer courts: Second Circuit (1)
232 F.3d 119 (2nd Cir. 2000)
JAMES F. WRIGHTEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
MARIE GLOWSKI, Director of Special Education, ALAN PALUCK, Assistant Director of Special Education, and NEW LONDON BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendants-Appellees.
Docket No. 00-7192
August Term, 2000
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Argued: October 27, 2000
Decided: November 15, 2000
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Dominic J. Squatrito, Judge) dismissing several of the plaintiff's discrimination claims and finding for the defendants on the other claims.
Affirmed in part, and appeal dismissed in part.
JAMES F. WRIGHTEN, pro se, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
RICHARD D. O'CONNOR, Siegel, O'Connor, Schiff & Zangari, P.C., Hartford, CT (George J. Kelly, Jr., of counsel), for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: OAKES, WINTER, and SACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[*~119]1
The plaintiff appeals from a January 19, 2000 judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Squatrito, Judge) dismissing several of the plaintiff's claims and finding in favor of the defendants on the remaining claims after a bench trial.
BACKGROUND
2
The plaintiff, an African-American man who had worked in the New London school district as a substitute teacher and a tutor, alleges that the defendants discriminated against him on the basis of his race and gender by failing to assign him students to tutor in 1997 and by refusing to grant him an educational assistant position in 1997. The plaintiff brought suit in 1998 under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the New London Board of Education and two individual employees of the school district. In a joint trial memorandum submitted shortly before trial, the plaintiff asserted additional claims under the Federal Vocational Rehabilitation Act (FVRA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The district court dismissed several of the plaintiff's claims, and after a bench trial on January 18, 2000, granted judgment for the defendants on the remaining claims.
DISCUSSION
[*120]3
We affirm the district court's judgment with respect to the claims it dismissed, and we dismiss the appeal with respect to the claims it decided in the defendants' favor after trial. First, the district court's dismissal of the FVRA, ADA, and ADEA claims was not an abuse of discretion because the claims were not asserted until shortly before trial. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (noting that undue delay and undue prejudice to the opposing party are grounds for denying a motion for leave to amend a complaint). The district court also properly dismissed the Title VII claims against Glowski and Paluck, because individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII. See Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1313 (2d Cir. 1995).
4
With respect to the plaintiff's challenges to the district court's findings and conclusions on the remaining claims, we dismiss this appeal with prejudice because the plaintiff failed to provide this Court with the trial transcripts needed to conduct meaningful appellate review, despite two extensions of time and advice from this Court to move in the district court for trial transcripts. Rule 10(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure imposes on the appellant the duty to order trial transcripts. The rules further provide that "[i]f the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, the appellant must include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to that finding or conclusion." Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2). The plaintiff's failure to provide these transcripts deprives this Court of the ability to conduct meaningful appellate review. We therefore dismiss the portion of the appeal challenging the district court's post-trial findings and conclusions. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(a)(2); Meroney v. Delta Int'l Mach. Corp., 18 F.3d 1436, 1437 (8th Cir. 1994); Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3956.1 n.6 (3d ed. 1999) (collecting cases).
CONCLUSION
5
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED in part and the appeal is DISMISSED in part.