Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-01244/USCOURTS-ca10-07-01244-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Bloor
Appellee
Eugenio Navarro Jr.
Appellant
Cary Shames
Appellee

Document Text:

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined *

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is

not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,

and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value

consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

November 5, 2007

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

EUGENIO NAVARRO JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 07-1244

v. (D. Colorado)

JOHN BLOOR, medical doctor at state

hospital from Pueblo; CARY

SHAMES, medical doctor at state

hospital from Pueblo,

 Defendants - Appellees.

(D.C. No. 06-cv-1577-WYD-BNB)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

*

Before LUCERO, HARTZ, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

Appellant Eugenio Navarro, Jr. is an inmate in the custody of the Colorado

Department of Corrections. In August 2006 he filed a claim under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against

Dr. John Bloor, Dr. Cary Shames, and others. He was permitted to proceed in

Appellate Case: 07-1244 Document: 010163391 Date Filed: 11/05/2007 Page: 1
-2-

forma pauperis. On February 1, 2007, all defendants but Drs. Bloor and Shames

were dismissed.

On February 8, 2007, the district court ordered the United States Marshal to

effect service upon Drs. Bloor and Shames. The marshal attempted service upon

them at the Colorado Mental Health Institute at Pueblo, the address that

Mr. Navarro had provided in his complaint; but the marshal was informed that

they no longer worked there and that their current addresses were not known. On

March 8 the summonses were returned unexecuted.

On April 2 a magistrate judge ordered Mr. Navarro to show cause, on or

before April 30, why his amended complaint should not be dismissed. In

response Mr. Navarro stated that he would like to put forth greater effort in

locating the defendants, but could not do so because he was incarcerated. He

stated that he was “considering” requesting a private investigator and attorney to

assist him in locating the defendants. R. Vol. I, Doc. 23 at 1. Because

Mr. Navarro had not yet served the defendants, had not established good cause for

that failure, and had not “indicated that he actually has or will take steps to locate

the defendants,” R. Vol. I, Doc. 24 at 2, the magistrate judge recommended that

his complaint be dismissed. The recommendation informed Mr. Navarro that 

the parties have 10 days after service of this recommendation to

serve and file specific, written objections. A party’s failure to serve

and file specific, written objections waives de novo review of the

recommendation by the district judge . . . and also waives appellate

review of both factual and legal questions.

Appellate Case: 07-1244 Document: 010163391 Date Filed: 11/05/2007 Page: 2
-3-

Id. at 2–3 (citation omitted). Mr. Navarro filed a motion for extension of time to

locate the defendants, but filed no written objection. On May 8, 2007, the district

court adopted the recommendation and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

 Mr. Navarro appeals.

“This court has adopted a firm waiver rule under which a party who fails to

make a timely objection to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations

waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions.” Morales-Fernandez

v. INS, 418 F.3d 1116, 1119 (10th Cir. 2005). Unless the interests of justice

require otherwise, the waiver rule applies equally to pro se litigants, provided that

the magistrate judge informs them of “the time period for objecting and the

consequences of failing to object.” Id. The magistrate judge clearly informed

Mr. Navarro of both the time period for objecting and the consequences for

failing to do so. Thus, we need consider only the interests of justice.

In Morales-Fernandez we explained that “the interests of justice analysis

we have developed . . . is similar to reviewing for plain error.” Id. at 1120. 

“Plain error occurs when there is (1) error (2) that is plain, which (3) affects

substantial rights, and which (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public

reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Gonzales-Huerta, 403 F.3d

727, 732 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

We see no plain error here. Indeed, we see no error. See Scott v. Hern,

216 F.3d 897, 912 (10th Cir. 2000) (“We review for abuse of discretion a district

Appellate Case: 07-1244 Document: 010163391 Date Filed: 11/05/2007 Page: 3
-4-

court’s dismissal for failure to effect service.”). Some nine months after the

complaint had been filed, there was no certain prospect that the two remaining

defendants would be served. Mr. Navarro had not demonstrated past diligence or

any sense of urgency. Nor has he argued in district court or on appeal that the

dismissal without prejudice would create a limitations-period problem for him.

Rather than cluttering the docket with an inactive case, the district court could

quite properly dismiss it without prejudice. 

We AFFIRM the district court’s ruling.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Harris L Hartz

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 07-1244 Document: 010163391 Date Filed: 11/05/2007 Page: 4