UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JACOB HAMMOND, JR.; BOBBY
RAGSDALE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

and

HERBERT FOSTER; DOUGLAS
SCROGGINS; KEVIN L. SUTTON;
                                                                      No. 00-1090
JEROME WARE; AARON WITTS,
Plaintiffs,

v.

HENRICO COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
Virginia,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge.
(CA-99-218-3)

Submitted: April 13, 2000

Decided: April 24, 2000

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges,
and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Jacob Hammond, Jr., Bobby Ragsdale, Appellants Pro Se. Phyllis
Audrey Errico, Assistant County Attorney, Joseph Thomas Tokarz, II,
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Richmond, Virginia, for Appel-
lee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Jacob Hammond, Jr., and Bobby Ragsdale appeal the district
court's order dismissing their action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981 (1994), 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999), and pendent
state law. Their case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended
dismissing the action and advised Hammond and Ragsdale that failure
to file specific objections to this recommendation could waive their
right to appellate review. Despite this warning, Hammond and Rags-
dale failed to specifically object to the magistrate judge's report and
recommendation.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (1994), the district court is
required to conduct a de novo review of those portions of the magis-
trate judge's report to which a specific objection has been made. The
court need not conduct de novo review, however,"when a party
makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court
to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recom-
mendations." Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).
Here, Hammond and Ragsdale made only general assertions and
failed to direct the district court to any specific errors in the magis-
trate judge's report and recommendation.

Because Hammond and Ragsdale were warned of the consequences
of failing to file specific objections and because they failed to specify
the portions of the magistrate judge's report to which they objected,
we find that they have waived appellate review. See United States v.

                     2
Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 93-94 (4th Cir. 1994) (failure to file objec-
tions waives appellate review). We therefore affirm the district court's
order. 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
