Alvin Sutherlin, Jr. v. Lieutenant J.W. Smith

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999945772-2] Originating case number: 4:15-cv-00037-JLK-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000021206]. Mailed to: Alvin L. Sutherlin Jr. First Floor 505 Jefferson Street Danville, VA 24541, Tyler Brent Gammon. [16-2056]

Appeal: 16-2056

Doc: 16

Filed: 02/10/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-2056

Doc: 16

Filed: 02/10/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Alvin
orders

L.

denying

Sutherlin,
his

Jr.,

motions

appeals

to

the

compel,

district

denying

court’s

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

brief

Cir.

2006)

(finding

“insufficient

to

single,

raise

on

conclusory

appeal

any

sentence

in

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

appeal.”).

None

triggers
of

abandonment

Sutherlin’s

of

that

allegations

claim
presents

on
a

substantial question sufficient to warrant the preparation of a
transcript
(2012).

at

Government

expense

under

28

U.S.C.

§ 753(f)

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

substantial question).

expense

when

appeal

presents

Therefore, we deny Sutherlin’s motion

for the preparation of transcripts at Government expense.

2

Appeal: 16-2056

Doc: 16

To

the

Filed: 02/10/2017

extent
have

that

Pg: 3 of 3

Sutherlin
the

record

preserved

and

find

no

issues

for

appeal,

we

error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court.

reviewed

has

reversible

Sutherlin v. Smith, No. 4:15-cv-00037-JLK-RSB

(W.D. Va. Aug. 5, Aug. 18, & Sept. 1, 2016).

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3