Joaquin Rodriguez v. Harold Clarke, No. 13-6181 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6181 JOAQUIN ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Corrections, Director of Virginia Department of Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:12-cv-00280-MSD-DEM) Submitted: May 8, 2013 Decided: June 6, 2013 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joaquin Alberto Rodriguez, Appellant Pro Se. James Milburn Isaacs, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Joaquin Alberto Rodriguez seeks to appeal the district court s order petition. denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Rodriguez that failure to file timely objections to the findings and recommendations set forth in the report would waive appellate review of a district court order based upon such findings and recommendations. The magistrate timely judge s filing of specific recommendation is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have noncompliance. Cir. 1985); been warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th see Rodriguez has objections in also waived the Thomas v. appellate district Arn, review court. * * 474 by U.S. 140 failing Accordingly, we (1985). to file deny a We have not construed Rodriguez s notice of appeal from the magistrate judge s report and recommendation filed in this Court as objections, because he did not address the magistrate judge s findings and recommendations or identify any issues for further review in the district court, and he does not challenge the district court s finding that he failed to file objections. 2 certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this Court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
