fails to rebut defendant’s non-retaliatory reasons for reprimanding her as pretext, R & R, ECF No. 96 at 48 — and Ms. Toomer’s objections to the R & R fail to address the first of those two grounds. See PL’s Objs., ECF No. 99 at 23-25, 27-28. Having failed to object to Magistrate Judge Harvey’s conclusion that being issued a letter of reprimand wás not a materially adverse employment action, Ms. Toomer has waived review of that conclusion in this Court. See Taylor, 205 F.Supp.3d at 79 (“[T]he district court may review only those issues that the parties, have raised in their objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report (internal quotation marks omitted). Even if Ms. Toomer had properly lodged a specific objection, such an objection would be overruled. See, e.g., Baloch, 550 F.3d at 1199 (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted); Hyson v.
holding no enforceable contract where letter specified it was a letter of interest only and is subject to the negotiation and execution of a definitive agreement  holding that issuing a letter of counseling and a letter of reprimand was not a materially adverse employment action for purposes of a retaliation claim because the letter contained no abusive language andinstead contained jobrelated constructive criticism which can prompt an employee to improve her performance holding that a negative criticism or performance evaluation unaccompanied by a materially adverse change in the terms or conditions of employment does not constitute adverse employment action holding that  1823e does not apply to a claim relating to a letter of credit a letter of credit is a liability not an asset holding that buyers letter signed only by buyer was sufficient to satisfy ors 7220102 where defendant seller argued that the letter contained indefinite and inconsistent terms