Full Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT MLADENKO KARAC, Appellant, v. FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES, INC. (FIS), Appellee. No. 2D2025-1811 November 13, 2026 Appeal from the Commission on Human Relations. Mladenko Karac, pro se. Cristine M. Russell and Eric J. Holshouser of Rogers Towers, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee. LaROSE, Judge. Mladenko Karac, pro se, appeals the Florida Commission on Human Relations' (FCHR) final order dismissing his employment discrimination petition against Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. We have jurisdiction, see Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(C), and we affirm. Mr. Karac repeatedly asked FCHR to transfer his petition to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Because FCHR lacked the authority to do so, it dismissed the petition. Yet, on appeal, Mr. Karac raises two issues that ignore the reason for the final order: (1) FCHR erred in dismissing the petition and finding that there was no reasonable cause to believe there was discrimination by relying solely on the FCHR's legal memorandum without holding an evidentiary hearing or reviewing his exhibits and (2) FCHR failed to transmit a complete record on appeal and failed to notify him that the failure to attend the prehearing conference would result in dismissal. To the extent that Mr. Karac asserts a due process argument, FCHR gave him notice and an opportunity to be heard at the prehearing conference. See generally Massey v. Charlotte County, 842 So. 2d 142, 146 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) ("Procedural due process requires both fair notice and a real opportunity to be heard 'at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.' " (quoting Keys Citizens for Responsible Gov't, Inc. v. Fla. Keys Aqueduct Auth., 795 So. 2d 940, 948 (Fla. 2001))). Mr. Karac chose not to attend. We are unable to review Mr. Karac's remaining issues because he failed to provide a complete record. See Bei v. Harper, 475 So. 2d 912, 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (explaining "that appellant has the burden to submit to the appellate court a record adequate to support the appeal" (citing Wright v. Wright, 431 So. 2d 177, 178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983))); see also Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) ("Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court's judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory. Without knowing the factual context, neither can an 2 appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal."). For example, FCHR's legal memorandum and Mr. Karac's exhibits are not in our record. In an October 2025 order, we alerted Mr. Karac that he could remedy this deficiency by filing an amended motion to supplement the record. He chose not to. In their briefs, Mr. Karac and Fidelity recognize that the record was incomplete. Fidelity even notes Mr. Karac's failure to supplement the record. Still, he took no action. Consequently, Mr. Karac waived any argument regarding the incomplete record. See Cirillo v. Davis, 732 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) ("Where, as here, the appellees point out the deficiency in the record in their brief and appellants do not move to supplement the record, this court takes the position that compliance with [Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure] 9.200(f)(2) has been waived." (citing Kauffmann v. Baker, 392 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980))). Because Mr. Karac failed to show reversible error and provide an adequate record, we affirm. See Applegate, 377 So. 2d at 1152. Affirmed. KHOUZAM and BLACK, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication. 3