Reginald Roberts v. Risa Ferman, 826 F.3d 117

Background

Reginald Roberts sued Montgomery County and multiple county employees alleging Title VII and § 1983 retaliation and related claims; counts II and III asserted First Amendment retaliation and Monell liability against the County.
The magistrate judge initially denied summary judgment on counts II and III; Roberts later revoked magistrate adjudication consent and the case returned to the district judge (Judge Savage).
Judge Savage, after supplemental briefing prompted by an intervening Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision and the Supreme Court’s Duryea/Guarnieri decision, granted summary judgment for Defendants on counts II and III; the remaining claims proceeded to trial and a jury returned verdict for Defendants.
Four of six days of trial transcript were lost; Judge Quiñones (to whom the post-trial motion was reassigned) ordered the court reporter to produce transcripts but they could not be recovered and then ordered the parties to recreate the record under Fed. R. App. P. 10(c).
Roberts refused to attempt reconstruction under Rule 10(c), asserting futility and disputing the court’s authority; after nine months Judge Quiñones dismissed Roberts’ post-trial motion for failure to prosecute. Roberts appealed.
The Third Circuit affirmed: it rejected an argument that Roberts forfeited appellate review for failing to include available transcripts; and it held dismissal for failure to prosecute was not an abuse of discretion given Roberts’ willful refusal to recreate the record under Rule 10(c). The Court also rejected Roberts’ procedural objections to Judge Savage’s grant of summary judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal of Roberts’ post-trial motion for failure to prosecute was an abuse of discretion	Roberts argued the court could not compel recreation of the record and that ordering compliance was futile; he also asserted bias	Defendants argued Roberts refused to comply with Judge Quiñones’ Rule 10(c) order and thus blocked resolution of his post-trial motion	Affirmed — dismissal was within the district court’s discretion where plaintiff willfully refused to recreate the record under Rule 10(c)
Whether failure to include available transcript portions on appeal forfeits claims under Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)	Roberts did not include available transcripts but did not misrepresent their existence	Defendants argued Roberts’ omission warranted forfeiture under Lehman Brothers	Held — no forfeiture here; Lehman Brothers involves a more culpable misstatement or deficient justification; failure to include transcripts alone did not mandate forfeiture
Whether Judge Savage procedurally erred by reconsidering and granting summary judgment on counts II and III after a magistrate judge denied summary judgment	Roberts claimed the district court lacked authority to revisit the magistrate’s prior denial	Defendants pointed to intervening law and changed circumstances (Guarnieri, Pennsylvania decision) allowing reconsideration	Held — reconsideration and sua sponte grant of summary judgment were proper because intervening law and changed circumstances warranted reconsideration and parties received notice/opportunity to respond
Whether omission of the trial transcript alone entitles Roberts to a new trial	Roberts argued lost transcripts required a new trial	Defendants argued appellant must attempt Rule 10(c) reconstruction before seeking retrial	Held — appellant must attempt reconstruction under Rule 10(c) and show specific prejudice; Roberts made no attempt, so no basis for new trial

Key Cases Cited

Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under § 1983 requires an official policy or custom)
Lehman Bros. Holdings, Inc. v. Gateway Funding Diversified Mortgage Servs., L.P., 785 F.3d 96 (3d Cir.) (failure to provide transcript can lead to forfeiture when coupled with misrepresentation or inadequate justification; sanction is disfavored and fact-specific)
Knoll v. City of Allentown, 707 F.3d 406 (dismissal for failure to prosecute is a sanction of last resort but within district court discretion in appropriate cases)
Hewlett v. Davis, 844 F.2d 109 (dismissal for failure to prosecute is part of court’s inherent authority to manage its docket)
Spain v. Gallegos, 26 F.3d 439 (dismissal appropriate where plaintiff willfully refuses to prosecute or obey court orders)
Guyer v. Beard, 907 F.2d 1424 (same: dismissal for blatant failure to comply with court orders)
United States v. Sierra, 981 F.2d 123 (reconstructed record via Rule 10(c) is required before appellate relief for missing transcript is considered; mere absence of transcript not automatically prejudicial)
United States v. Sussman, 709 F.3d 155 (reconstructed record can permit meaningful review; appellant must show specific prejudice if reconstruction is inadequate)
Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379 (clarified First Amendment public-employee retaliation standards relevant to § 1983 claims)