UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 discrimination 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 impairments 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 tantamount 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 argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3