
    Jerry HINES, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VETERANS OUTREACH CENTER INC., Defendant-Appellee.
    14-2734
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 10, 2017
    
      FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Jerry Hines, Jr., pro se, Grady, AL.
    FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Jennifer A. Shoemaker, Underberg & Kessler LLP, Rochester, NY.
    PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Jerry Hines, Jr., proceeding pro se, sued his former employer, Veterans Outreach Center Inc. (“VOC”), for retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. After a five-day trial, a jury found in favor of VOC. On appeal, Hines challenges the jury’s verdict and the magistrate judge’s denial of his motions for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial. Hines filed his notice of appeal after the jury’s verdict, but did not file a new or amended notice of appeal after the post-judgment rulings. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

As an initial matter, we lack appellate jurisdiction over Hines’s challenge to the post-judgment rulings because Hines did not file a notice of appeal or amended notice of appeal after those rulings issued, as is required under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(B)(ii). See Williams v. KFC Nat’l Mgmt. Co., 391 F.3d 411, 415 (2d Cir. 2004) (“Compliance with Rule 4(a) is mandatory and jurisdictional.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Although Hines also challenges the verdict, he has not provided us with transcripts of the proceedings below. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(b) requires an appellant, within 14 days after the filing of a notice of appeal, to either (1) order in writing transcripts of such parts of the proceedings that are necessary to the appeal and that are not already on file (and satisfy the other requirements of Rule 10(b)(1)(A)); or (2) file a certificate stating that no transcript will be ordered. Here, Hines did neither.

Hines’s failure to provide the relevant transcripts deprives us of the ability to conduct meaningful appellate review. Accordingly, consistent with the long-established practice of this Court, we are compelled to dismiss Hines’s appeal. We dismiss without prejudice, however, because Hines is proceeding pro se and has not yet been informed of his obligations under Rule 10. 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”).

Hines’s appeal is therefore DISMISSED in part for lack of appellate jurisdiction as to his appeal from the denial of his post-verdict motions and DISMISSED in part without prejudice to reinstatement as to his appeal from the judgment, provided that, within 30 days of the date of this order, he provides this Court with: (1) the relevant transcripts; (2) proof that he has ordered the transcripts; or (3) proof that he has moved in this Court for free transcripts. Hines should adhere to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a) and Second Circuit Local Rule 24.1 if and when he files a motion for transcripts. Upon timely filing of the relevant transcripts, the appeal will be reinstated.  