Alvin Sutherlin, Jr. v. Lieutenant J.W. Smith ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-2056
ALVIN L. SUTHERLIN, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LIEUTENANT J. W. SMITH; SERGEANT H. S. RICHARDSON; OFFICER
N. M. SLOVER; OFFICER M. C. PACE; OFFICER R. C. LANDRUM;
OFFICER D. C. LANCASTER; OFFICER W. C. SHIVLEY; OFFICER W.
R. MERRILL; OFFICER J. D. DIXON; OFFICER L. D. LAND,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (4:15-cv-00037-JLK-RSB)
Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 10, 2017
Before KEENAN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alvin L. Sutherlin, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Maggy Lewis Gregory,
James A. L. Daniel, Tyler Brent Gammon, Martha White Medley,
DANIEL, MEDLEY & KIRBY, PC, Danville, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alvin L. Sutherlin, Jr., appeals the district court’s
orders denying his motions to compel, denying relief on his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint, and denying his Fed. R. Civ.
P. 59(e) motions. The majority of Sutherlin’s allegations of
error on appeal are conclusory and fail to preserve an issue for
review. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (directing appellants to present
“specific issues and supporting facts and arguments” in informal
brief); see also Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648, 653
n.7 (4th Cir. 2006) (finding single, conclusory sentence in
brief “insufficient to raise on appeal any merits-based
challenge to the district court’s ruling”); Edwards v. City of
Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (“Failure to
comply with the specific dictates of [Rule 28] with respect to a
particular claim triggers abandonment of that claim on
appeal.”). None of Sutherlin’s allegations presents a
substantial question sufficient to warrant the preparation of a
transcript at Government expense under 28 U.S.C. § 753(f)
(2012). See Rhodes v. Corps of Eng’rs of U.S. Army, 589 F.2d
358, 359 (8th Cir. 1978) (per curiam) (authorizing preparation
of transcript at Government expense when appeal presents
substantial question). Therefore, we deny Sutherlin’s motion
for the preparation of transcripts at Government expense.
2
To the extent that Sutherlin has preserved issues for
appeal, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Sutherlin v. Smith, No. 4:15-cv-00037-JLK-RSB
(W.D. Va. Aug. 5, Aug. 18, & Sept. 1, 2016). We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3