Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-03205/USCOURTS-ca10-16-03205-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

MARJORIE A. CREAMER, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DAVE STORTZ; NANCY STORTZ; 

STORTZ AUCTION, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 16-3205

(D.C. No. 5:16-CV-04046-DDC-JPO)

(D. Kan.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, LUCERO, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

If a litigant fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, that party 

generally waives her right to appellate review under this circuit’s “firm waiver rule.” See 

Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991). The waiver rule applies to a 

pro se party unless: (1) the party has not been informed of the period within which to file 

objections and the consequences for failing to do so, or (2) the “interests of justice” 

require review. Morales-Fernandez v. I.N.S., 418 F.3d 1116, 1119 (10th Cir. 2005).

In the case underlying this appeal, a magistrate judge recommended the dismissal 

of Marjorie Creamer’s complaint and advised her that she could file written objections to 

the recommendation within 14 days and that failure to file timely objections could result 

in the waiver of appellate review. Ms. Creamer did not file any objections to the 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 2, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-3205 Document: 01019666035 Date Filed: 08/02/2016 Page: 1 
2

recommendation and the district court dismissed her complaint. She now seeks to appeal 

that dismissal. 

Upon opening this appeal, the court directed Ms. Creamer to show cause why she 

had not waived her right to appellate review by failing to object to the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation. Though she filed a pro se brief in response, Ms. Creamer has not shown 

that either exception to our firm waiver rule applies. Accordingly, this appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Jane K. Castro

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-3205 Document: 01019666035 Date Filed: 08/02/2016 Page: 2