Rodetrick Godfrey v. Director Dept of Correction
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999952422-2]; denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 2:12-cv-00093-AWA-RJK Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Rodetrick Godfrey. [16-7294]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
RODETRICK LAMONT GODFREY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
DIRECTOR OF DEPT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (2:12-cv-00093-AWA-RJK)
December 20, 2016
December 22, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rodetrick Lamont Godfrey, Appellant Pro Se.
Armstrong, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
petition and his motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b).
The district court referred this case to a
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012).
advised Godfrey that failure to file timely objections to this
recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court
order based upon the recommendation.
The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate
judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review
of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have
been warned of the consequences of noncompliance.
appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving
Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
this court and 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?