Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (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, 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. We only address issues properly raised in Pickens’ informal brief. 4th Cir. R. 34(b).