Laserfiche WebLink
U.S.G. § 636(b){1). A general objection that does not put the district court on notice of <br />the basis for the objection will not preserve the objection for de novo review. See /n re <br />Griego, 64 F.3d at 583; United Stales v. One Parcel of Real Property Known As <br />2121 East 30th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10"' Cir. 1996). The <br />district judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part. the findings or <br />recommendations made by the magistrate judge, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). <br />°[A] party's objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation must <br />be bath timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court <br />or for appellate review " One Parce/ of Real Property, 73 F.3d at 1060. Failure to <br />make timely objections may bar de novo review by the district judge of the magistrate <br />judge's proposed findings and recommendations and will result in a waiver of the right <br />to appeal from a judgment of the district court based on the proposed findings and <br />recommendations of the magistrate judge..See Vega v. Suthers, 195 F.3d 573, 579- <br />80 (10"' Cir. 1999) (district court's decision to review a magistrate's recommendation de <br />novo despite the lack of an objection does not preclude application of the''firm waiver <br />rule°); One Parcel of Real Property, 73 F.3d at 1059-60 (a party's objections to the <br />magistrate judge's report and recommendation must be both timely and specific to <br />preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or for appellate review); <br />International Surplus Lines Insurance Co, v. Wyoming Coal Refining Systems, <br />lnc., 52 F.3d 901, 904 (10'" Cir. 1995) (by failing to object to certain portions of the <br />magistrate's order, cross-claimant had waived its right to appeal those portions of the <br />ruling); Ayala v. United States, 980 F.2d 1342, 1352 (10`~ Cir. 1992) (by their failure to <br />10 <br />