Miles v. Richland Memorial

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
VIRGINIA R. MILES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 96-2235
RICHLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-95-127-3-17BD)
Submitted: February 27, 1997
Decided: March 12, 1997
Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Virginia R. Miles, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Richbourg Roberson,
GIGNILLIAT, SAVITZ & BETTIS, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Virginia R. Miles appeals the district court's order dismissing her
complaint, filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42
U.S.C. §§ 12111-12213 (1994), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-16 (1994), alleging job dis-
crimination based on her handicaps and her religion.* Appellant's
case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended granting
the Appellee's motion for summary judgment and advised Appellant
that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation
could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the
recommendation.
Appellant's general objections to the magistrate judge's report are
presented as a memorandum, rehashing the claims asserted in her
complaint. They do not challenge the magistrate judge's conclusion
that Appellant failed to adduce sufficient evidence that her impair-
ments substantially limit one of her major life activities or that any
discrimination was based on these disabilities. These objections also
do not challenge the magistrate judge's finding that Appellant had
failed to produce any evidence to support her claim that the Appellee
discriminated against her based on her religion.
Specific objections are necessary to focus the court's attention on
disputed issues. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147-48 (1985).
Because general objections to a magistrate judge's report do not direct
the court's attention to any specific portion of the report, they are tan-
tamount to a failure to object. See Howard v. Secretary of Health &
Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991); see also Orpiano
v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982) (failure to file specific
objections to particular conclusions in magistrate judge's report, after
warning of consequences of failure to object, waives further review).
A failure to object waives appellate review. See Wright v. Collins, 766
_________________________________________________________________
*Miles asserts that she suffers from diabetes and hearing loss in her
left ear.
2
F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). Consequently, the district court
properly adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation.
Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of Appellant's action. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3