Case Name: Allen Lee GODFREY, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer D. R. FAULKNER, RCPD; Officer McNiff, RCPD; Officer Collins; Officer John (2) Doe, RCPD; Lt. Ratliff, Roanoke City Police Officer; Officer John (3) Doe, RCPD; Officer John (4) Doe, RCPD; Officer Jane Doe, RCPD; Sgt. I. T. Anderson, RCPD; All of the Roanoke City Police Department; Chief Joe Gaskins, RCPD; Chief Chris Perkins; Officer Loureiro, a/k/a Loverio, RCPD, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-28
Citations: 678 F. App'x 144
Docket Number: No. 16-7503
Parties: Allen Lee GODFREY, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer D. R. FAULKNER, RCPD; Officer McNiff, RCPD; Officer Collins; Officer John (2) Doe, RCPD; Lt. Ratliff, Roanoke City Police Officer; Officer John (3) Doe, RCPD; Officer John (4) Doe, RCPD; Officer Jane Doe, RCPD; Sgt. I. T. Anderson, RCPD; All of the Roanoke City Police Department; Chief Joe Gaskins, RCPD; Chief Chris Perkins; Officer Loureiro, a/k/a Loverio, RCPD, Defendants.
Judges: Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 678
Pages: 144–145

Head Matter:
Allen Lee GODFREY, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer D. R. FAULKNER, RCPD; Officer McNiff, RCPD; Officer Collins; Officer John (2) Doe, RCPD; Lt. Ratliff, Roanoke City Police Officer; Officer John (3) Doe, RCPD; Officer John (4) Doe, RCPD; Officer Jane Doe, RCPD; Sgt. I. T. Anderson, RCPD; All of the Roanoke City Police Department; Chief Joe Gaskins, RCPD; Chief Chris Perkins; Officer Loureiro, a/k/a Loverio, RCPD, Defendants.
No. 16-7503
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: February 23, 2017
Decided: February 28, 2017
Allen Lee Godfrey, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Allen Lee Godfrey, Sr., appeals from the district court's order denying his motion filed in his closed 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action for a transcript at Government expense. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Godfrey v. Faulkner, No. 7:13-cv-00454-NKM-RSB (W.D. Va. Oct. 21, 2016). 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