James Calwile v. Richard Bazzle, No. 08-6978 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6978 JAMES CHARLES CALWILE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. RICHARD E. BAZZLE, Respondent - Appellee.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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. this case to a magistrate § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The district court referred judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 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 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 noncompliance. have been warned of the consequences of 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 2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 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.
