John Rutherford v. Dale Anders, No. 15-6199 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6199 JOHN RUTHERFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CORPORAL DALE ANDERS; SERGEANT MELINDA HANEY, a/k/a Sergeant Belinda; PFC DAVID EAVES, Defendants – Appellees, and UNION COUNTY JAIL; ROBERT HINES, Administrator; D. HANEY, Assistant Administrator; OFFICER DELL MITCHELL, a/k/a Officer Dell, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:11-cv-03139-DCN) Submitted: April 23, 2015 Decided: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. April 28, 2015 John Rutherford, Appellant Pro Se. Russell W. Harter, Jr., CHAPMAN, HARTER & HARTER, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: John Rutherford appeals the district court’s final judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of Appellees in his civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012). The record does not contain a transcript of the trial proceedings. An appellant has the burden of including in the record on appeal a transcript of all parts of the proceedings material to the issues raised on appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 10(b); 4th Cir. R. 10(c). proceeding on appeal in forma pauperis is An appellant entitled to transcripts at government expense only in certain circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (2012). By failing to produce a transcript or to qualify for the production of a transcript at government expense, Rutherford has waived review of the issues on appeal that depend upon the transcript to show error. Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2); Keller v. Prince George’s Cnty., 827 F.2d 952, 954 n.1 (4th Cir. 1987). As the record before us reveals that Rutherford did not pursue Civil any post-verdict Procedure 50(b) or motions Rule pursuant 59, he to may Federal not Rule challenge sufficiency of evidence supporting the jury’s verdict. of the Belk, Inc. v. Meyer Corp., U.S., 679 F.3d 146, 154 (4th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment and deny his pending motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

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.