Alvin Sutherlin, Jr. v. Lieutenant J.W. Smith
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . Mailed to: Alvin L. Sutherlin Jr. First Floor 505 Jefferson Street Danville, VA 24541, Tyler Brent Gammon. [16-2056]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
ALVIN L. SUTHERLIN, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
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)
January 31, 2017
February 10, 2017
Before KEENAN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
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
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
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
substantial question sufficient to warrant the preparation of a
See Rhodes v. Corps of Eng’rs of U.S. Army, 589 F.2d
358, 359 (8th Cir. 1978) (per curiam) (authorizing preparation
Therefore, we deny Sutherlin’s motion
for the preparation of transcripts at Government expense.
Pg: 3 of 3
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
Sutherlin v. Smith, No. 4:15-cv-00037-JLK-RSB
(W.D. Va. Aug. 5, Aug. 18, & Sept. 1, 2016).
We dispense with
argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?