Rodetrick Godfrey v. Director Dept of Correction

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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