Filed July 2, 2015. 1 . In its Petition, KneX also claims an interest as a secured creditor of Belcorp in property represented by invoices for items it supplied. (Pet. for Adjud. of Int. in Prop'. Forfeited & Req. for Hr’g ¶ 11, ECF No. 435.) Additionally, KneX asserts in its Petition that the invoiced items or their proceeds are, not forfei-table for various reasons. (Id. ¶ 12.) These claims were not discussed in the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, Moreover, KneX’s failure to supply a transcript of the hearing before the magistrate judge makes it unclear if these issues were raised at that time. Regardless, KneX has not raised any objection based on these arguments; therefore, I will consider them waived. See United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22 (4th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). 1 . KneX’s Claim previously was dismissed by
holding that objections must focus on specific issues in part because a district court is not responsible for reviewing every issue considered by a magistrate judge holding that a question that is not raised or passed upon in the lower court cannot be considered by a reviewing court holding that because generic objections do not afford a sentencing court sufficient notice such objections are inadequate to preserve specific claims of sentencing error holding that a party waived its objections on appeal to an affidavit presented in support of a motion for summary judgment by failing to raise its objections to the trial court holding that issue is preserved if the objections at the trial were sufficiently specific to notify the trial court at the time of the nature and character of the objections and the reasons for them