Bobby Setzer, Jr. v. Harold Clarke, No. 16-7035 (4th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7035 BOBBY CLIFTON SETZER, JR., Petitioner – Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:15-cv-00517-RAJ-RJK) Submitted: November 17, 2016 Before GREGORY, Judges. Chief Judge, Decided: and MOTZ and November 22, 2016 TRAXLER, Circuit Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby Clifton Setzer, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bobby Clifton Setzer, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order petition. judge denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) The district court referred this case to a magistrate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Setzer 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 F.2d 841, 845-46 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). (4th Cir. 1985); also Setzer has waived appellate review by failing to file objections. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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

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.