Alvin Sutherlin, Jr. v. Lieutenant J.W. Smith , 676 F. App'x 197 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED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    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-2056

Citation Numbers: 676 F. App'x 197

Judges: Keenan, Thacker, Hamilton

Filed Date: 2/10/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024