Court Opinion

ID: 9908570
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-09 21:00:32.639874+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:15.970996
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1173      Doc: 14         Filed: 12/08/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1173

        DAVID EARL SUTHERLAND,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, INC.; BROWN & WILLIAMSON
        TOBACCO CORPORATION; LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY; PHILLIP
        MORRIS USA, INC.,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (6:21-cv-00671-TMC)

        Submitted: November 13, 2023                                 Decided: December 8, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        David Earl Sutherland, Appellant Pro Se. Caroline Marie Gieser, SHOOK HARDY &
        BACON LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellee Phillip Morris USA, Inc.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1173         Doc: 14     Filed: 12/08/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              David Earl Sutherland appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’

        motion to dismiss Sutherland’s state law personal injury claims as time-barred under South

        Carolina’s three-year statute of limitations. We have reviewed the record and find no

        reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See

        Sutherland v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00671-TMC (D.S.C. Feb. 9,

        2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

        adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                                     AFFIRMED

                                                    2