by alleging that the district court improperly conducted a Rule 11 hearing.”). But this case has an additional wrinkle. Litigants who fail to object to a magis trate’s report and recommendation, within the time provided, generally waive their right to challenge the magistrate’s decision. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir.1981). And in this instance, Taylor never objected to the magistrate’s conclusion that his waiver was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, let alone raised this objection within the ten days provided. The Supreme Court has sanctioned this procedural rule, see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1986), and we have applied it to criminal cases, see, e.g., United States v. Campbell, 261 F.3d 628, 631-32 (6th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). What we have not yet done, however, is hold
holding that the defendant waived the right to challenge a suppression ruling on appeal holding that a defendant who fails to raise a specific issue as the basis for suppression in a motion to suppress to the district court has waived the right to raise that issue on appeal holding challenge to suppression ruling not waived under young even though record did not affirmatively indicate that the ruling was part or all of reason for plea holding that appellants waived any claim of error as to the portion of the lower courts ruling that they did not expressly challenge on appeal holding that when defense counsel withdrew an objection to admission of evidence the defendant waived his right to a review of the courts ruling on appeal