COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Alston, Ch afin and Senior Judge Haley

SUSAN E. QUILLEN MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1673-15-3 PER CURIAM APRIL 12, 2016 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA/DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIO RAL HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES

FROM THE CIRCUIT C OURT OF SMYTH COUNTY C. Randall Lowe, Judge (William L. Cregger, on briefs), for appellant. (Mark R. Herring, Attorney Gene ral; Rhodes B. Ritenour, Deputy Attorney General; Ronald N. Regnery, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Nicholas F. Simopoulos, Assistant Attorney General; Katherine M. DeCoster, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication. Susan E. Quillen (Quillen) appeals the Se ptember 21, 2015 decision by the circuit court affirming a hearing officer’s d ecision upholding the termination of her employment for falsifying her employment history and academic background on her employment application. On appeal to this Court, Quillen contends the circuit court erred “when i[t] failed to find that appellee’s failure to comply with” Code § 2.2-3800(C)(7) was contrary to law and by “finding that Quillen did not have the right to correct records in her personn el file.” For the reasons that follow, we summarily affirm the decision of the circuit court. Rule 5A:27. Quillen, as the appellant in this matter, has the burden of showing that reversible error occurred below. See Lutes v. Alexander, 14 Va. App. 1075, 1077, 421 S.E.2d 857, 859 (1992).UNPUBLISHED- 2 - Under the settled law of this Commonwealth, an a ppellate court does not “search the record for

errors” or “seek out the substance of all conten tions made during the progress of a trial” or a grievance proceeding. Law v. Commonwealth, 171 Va. 449, 455, 199 S.E. 516, 519 (1938); see also Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 Va. App. 53, 56, 415 S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992). Rule 5A:25 requires Quillen to file an appendix that “should generally contain everything relevant to the” assignments of error. Reid v. Commonwea lth, 57 Va. App. 42, 49, 698 S.E.2d 269, 272 (2010). “The appendix serves this Court to evaluate the merits of [the] appellant’s assigned error.” Id. Rule 5A:25(c) provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]n appendix shall include:” “the basic initial pleading;” “the judgment appealed from, and any memorandum or opinion relating thereto;” “any testimony and othe r incidents of the case germane to the assignments of error;” “the title . . . of each paper contained in th e appendix, and its filing date;” and “exhibits necessary for an understanding of the case . . . .” Furthermore, “[a]s the appellant, [Quillen] had the responsibility of providi ng this Court with an appropr iate appendix” that met the requirements of Rule 5A:25 and adequately addr essed her assignments of error. Robinson v. Robinson, 50 Va. App. 189, 197, 648 S.E.2d 314, 317 ( 2007). The appendix that Quillen filed in this Court fails to include several significant documents that are necessary for addressing her a ssignments of error – and also includes items not part of the circuit court record. Quillen failed to include her initial pleading in the case. She

also failed to include the hear ing officer’s decisions or the ci rcuit court order from which she appeals. Quillen did not include a transcript of the circuit court proceedings or a signed statement of facts. In short, Quillen has failed to comply with Rule 5A:25 by failing to present this Court with an adequate appendix from whic h to address her assignments of error on appeal. “The appendix is a tool vital to the function of the appellate process in Virginia . . . . By requi ring the inclusion of all parts of the record germane to the issues , the Rules promote the cause of plenary justice.” Thrasher v. Burlage, 219 Va. 1007, 1009-10, 254- 3 - S.E.2d 64, 66 (1979) ( per curiam ). Thus, the filing of an appendix that complies with the Rules, is “es sential to an informed collegiate decision.” Id. Patterson v. City of Richmond, 39 Va. App. 706, 717, 576 S.E.2d 759, 764-65 (2003). Under this Court’s decision in Patterson, an appendix filed pursuant to Rule 5A:25 must include “all parts of the record ge rmane to the issues” on appeal. Id. It is plainly unacceptable for any litigant who appeals a judgm ent to file an appendix that fa ils to include several necessary documents. Presenting an appendix in such a de ficient manner contradicts the very purpose of filing an appendix, which is to bring to this Cour t’s attention “those items necessary to evaluate

whether the trial court erred.” Reid, 57 Va. App. at 49, 698 S.E.2d at 272. Simply put, it is not

this Court’s “function to comb th rough the record . . . in order to ferret-out for ourselves the validity of [appellant’s] clai ms.” Fitzgerald v. Bass, 6 Va. App. 38, 56 n.7, 366 S.E.2d 615, 625 n.7 (1988) ( en banc ). Accordingly, we find that appellant’s failure to comply with Rule 5A:25 by filing an inadequate appendix is so significant that we cannot and will not consider her arguments on appeal. See Jay v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 510, 520, 659 S.E.2d 311, 317 (2008) (“the Court of Appeals should . . . consider whether any failure to strictly adhere to the requirements of [the Rules of Court] is insignificant . . .”); cf. Rules 5A:1(a) (authori zing dismissal of appeal or “such other penalty” deemed appropriate); 5A:26 (authorizing additional dismissal remedy in appropriate cases). Accordingly, we summarily affirm the ci rcuit court’s decisio n. See Code § 17.1-403;

Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.