UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6127
MACK NEIL MYERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
THOMAS E. ATKINS, Warden,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-97-1893-10-20BD)
Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: May 4, 1998
Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mack Neil Myers, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Foster McLeod, HARRIS &
MCLEOD, Cheraw, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (1994), complaint. Appellant's case was referred to
a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The
magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised
Appellant that failure to file specific, timely objections to this
recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court
order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appel-
lant filed only a general objection which merely stated that
Appellee failed to respond to Appellant's discovery requests. This
general objection is insufficient to preserve appellate review of
Appellant's claims. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147-48 (1985);
Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).
Specific objections to the magistrate judge's report and rec-
ommendation are necessary in order to focus the court's attention
on disputed issues, Thomas, 474 U.S. at 147-48, and to preserve
appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the
parties have been warned that failure to specifically object will
waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46
(4th Cir. 1985). Appellant waived appellate review by failing to
raise specific objections after receiving proper notice. According-
ly, we affirm the order of the district court. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2