UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6655

MATTHEW THOMAS PICKENS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATION,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

JANICE GALLI MCLEOD, Associate Director of the USDOJ; KEVIN 

FRANK MCDONALD, Assistant US Attorney,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. R. Bryan Harwell, District 

Judge. (2:11-cv-01168-RBH)

Submitted: September 27, 2012 Decided: October 1, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew Thomas Pickens, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier 

Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Matthew Thomas Pickens appeals from the district 

court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation 

and denying relief on his civil action based on the Freedom of 

Information Act (“FOIA”). A party who fails to file specific 

written objections within ten days waives the right to an 

appeal. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 

1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 93-94 (4th Cir. 

1984). The requirement to make objections preserves the 

district court’s role as the primary supervisor of magistrate 

judges, Wright, 766 F.2d at 845, and conserves judicial 

resources by training the attention of both the district court 

and the court of appeals upon only those issues that remain in 

dispute after the magistrate judge has made findings and 

recommendations. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147-48 (1985).

While Pickens timely objected to some portions of the 

magistrate judge’s report, he did not object to the sole issue 

he raises on appeal: that the magistrate judge improperly found 

the Defendants withheld some information because of certain FOIA 

exemptions.∗

 If a party does not file specific written

objections to a proposed finding of fact or conclusion of law, 

 ∗ We only address issues properly raised in Pickens’ 

informal brief. 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
3

then the party is deemed to have waived his right to appellate 

review of that particular finding of fact or conclusion of law 

by the district court. United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 

621-22 (4th Cir. 2007). This “general waiver rule” is also 

applicable to general objections to a report and recommendation 

as a whole. Id. Thus, in order to preserve for appeal an issue 

in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to the 

finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient 

specificity so as to reasonably alert the district court of the 

true ground for the objection. Id. As noted by the district 

court, Pickens failed to object to the magistrate judge’s 

finding that Defendants properly withheld some information 

because of FOIA exemptions. Thus, Pickens has waived appellate 

review of this claim. 

Accordingly, Pickens has waived appellate review of 

his sole issue raised on appeal and we therefore dismiss. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED