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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [999992604]. Mailed to: Rodetrick Godfrey. [16-7294]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7294 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7294 RODETRICK LAMONT GODFREY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF DEPT OF CORRECTIONS,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) Submitted: December 20, 2016 Decided: 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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Alice Theresa Armstrong, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-7294 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Rodetrick court’s Lamont denying order Godfrey relief seeks on his to appeal 28 U.S.C. the district § 2254 (2012) 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). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and 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. Wright v. Collins, see 766 Thomas v. F.2d Arn, 474 841, U.S. 845-46 (4th Cir. 140 (1985). 1985); Godfrey has also waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED 2

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?