Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/cod;;1:16-cv-02117_de76> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- cod;;1:16-cv-02117_de76 RegisterActionDate "2018-03-07" @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-02117_de76 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE ORDER re: 75 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. As Plaintiff 32286FD is representing himself pro se, the court advises the parties that: Within fourteen days after service of a copy of the Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections to the Magistrate Judges proposed findings and recommendations with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); In re Griego, 64 F.3d 580, 583 (10th Cir. 1995). A general objection that does not put the District Court on notice of the basis for the objection will not preserve the objection for de novo review. [A] partys objections to the magistrate judges report and recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or for appellate review. United States v. One Parcel of Real Property Known As 2121 East 30th Street, Tulsa, Okla., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). Failure to make timely objections may bar de novo review by the District Judge of the Magistrate Judges proposed findings and recommendations and will result in a waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the district court based on the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. See Vega v. Suthers, 195 F.3d 573, 579-80 (10th Cir. 1999) (District Courts decision to review a Magistrate Judges recommendation de novo despite the lack of an objection does not preclude application of the firm waiver rule); Intl Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Wyo. Coal Refining Sys., Inc., 52 F.3d 901, 904 (10th Cir. 1995) (by failing to object to certain portions of the Magistrate Judges order, cross-claimant had waived its right to appeal those portions of the ruling); Ayala v. United States, 980 F.2d 1342, 1352 (10th Cir. 1992) (by their failure to file objections, plaintiffs waived their right to appeal the Magistrate Judges ruling). But see, Morales-Fernandez v. INS, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005) (firm waiver rule does not apply when the interests of justice require review). By Magistrate Judge Mark L. Carman on 3/7/2018. Text Only Entry (cbslc1) (Entered: 03/07/2018)" @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-02117_de76 AdministrativeID "77" @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-02117_de76 OntologyLabel order @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-02117_de76 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:16-cv-02117_de74 @default.