
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kareem B. WOODS, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kareem B. Woods, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 03-6308, 03-6358.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 15, 2003.
    Decided June 2, 2003.
    
      Kareem B. Woods, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Kareem B. Woods appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his motion to reduce his sentence. We affirm.

The district court referred this case 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 Woods that failure to file specific objections to the recommendation within ten days plus three days for mailing could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Woods placed objections in the prison mail system on February 5, 2003, and they were postmarked on February 6, 2003.

Despite this timely filing, the district court did not enter Woods’s filing on the docket until February 10, 2003. On that day the district court, noting that no objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation had been filed, adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendations and dismissed Woods’s motion. Upon receipt of Woods’s objections, the district court found the filing untimely and moot. The district court found that Woods’s objections failed to indicate specific error in the magistrate judge’s report and, without a de novo review, reaffirmed its February 10 order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

We find that any error in the district court’s conclusion that Woods’s objections were not timely filed is harmless. Nor does the district court’s failure to perform a de novo review necessitate reversal because Woods failed to raise specific objections after receiving proper notice and thereby waives his right to appellate review. See Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir.1982).

Accordingly, we affirm. We grant in forma pauperis status in both appeals. 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. 
      
      . See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988) (prisoner's notice of appeal filed on the day it is delivered to prison officials).
     
      
      . Woods’s objections were due on February 10, 2003, ten days after the magistrate judge issued her report plus the three days specified in the magistrate judge’s report for mailing. See Fed.RXiv.P. 6(a) (providing that "intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays” are excluded when the time period is less than eleven days).
     
      
      . Woods also raises two claims for the first time on appeal. This Court generally does not address issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993).
     