Filed: Oct. 28, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6978 JAMES CHARLES CALWILE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. RICHARD E. BAZZLE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (6:07-cv-03100-HMH) Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 28, 2008 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Charles Calwile,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6978 JAMES CHARLES CALWILE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. RICHARD E. BAZZLE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (6:07-cv-03100-HMH) Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 28, 2008 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Charles Calwile, A..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6978
JAMES CHARLES CALWILE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
RICHARD E. BAZZLE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (6:07-cv-03100-HMH)
Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 28, 2008
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Charles Calwile, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter,
III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Charles Calwile, a South Carolina prisoner,
seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The district court referred
this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that
relief be denied and advised Calwile that failure to timely file
specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate
review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.
Despite this warning, Calwile failed to file specific objections
to the magistrate judge’s 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. See United States v. Midgette,
478 F.3d 616,
621-22 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
127 S. Ct. 3032 (2007); see
also Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins,
766
F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). Calwile has waived appellate
review by failing to file specific objections after receiving
proper notice. Accordingly, we 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
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3