Alvin Sutherlin, Jr. v. Lieutenant J.W. Smith, No. 16-2056 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2056 ALVIN L. SUTHERLIN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LIEUTENANT J. W. SMITH; SERGEANT H. S.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 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 To the extent have that 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.