Filed: Dec. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1753 BOBBY EUGENE RODDY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. MARVIN C. PLUMLEY, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, District Judge. (2:13-cv-31233) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cur
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1753 BOBBY EUGENE RODDY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. MARVIN C. PLUMLEY, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, District Judge. (2:13-cv-31233) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1753 BOBBY EUGENE RODDY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. MARVIN C. PLUMLEY, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, District Judge. (2:13-cv-31233) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby Eugene Roddy, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bobby Eugene Roddy appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his mandamus petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Roddy v. Plumley, No. 2:13-cv-31233 (S.D.W. Va. June 27, 2014). 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. AFFIRMED 2
