In this consolidated appeal, Earl Robert Merritt, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil actions. The district court referred the cases to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Merritt that failure to file timely and specific objections to the recommendations could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning Merritt failed to file specific objections * to the magistrate judge’s recommendations.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147-48, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). A district court need not conduct de novo review “when a party makes general and conelusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted); see also Howard v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508-09 (6th Cir. 1991) (noting that general objections to a magistrate judge’s report may be insufficient to preserve appellate review). Merritt has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Merritt’s motions for appointment of counsel and affirm the judgments of the district court.

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.