* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 1/7/97 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ORLANDO SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. SHIRLEY S. CHATER, Commissioner, Social Security Administration,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-2289 (D.C. No. CIV-94-265-JC) (D. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA, EBEL, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral argument. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Th e case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.1 Effective March 31, 1995, the functions of the Secr etary of Health and

Human Services in social security cases were transf erred to the Commissioner of Social Security. P.L. No. 103-296. Although the c aption reflects that the Commissioner is now the proper party, we continue t o refer to the Secretary in the text because she was the appropriate party at the t ime of the underlying decision. 2-- Plaintiff appeals the district court’s order affirm ing the Secretary’s 1 denial of plaintiff’s applications for disability insuranc e benefits and supplemental security income. The Secretary determined that pla intiff could do a full range of sedentary work and, therefore, was not disabled at step five of the sequential analysis. See generallyWilliams v. Bowen , 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1988) (discussing sequential analysis). Plaintiff raises several challenges to the Secretary’s denial of benefits. “The scope of our review, however, is limited to th e issues the claimant properly preserves in the district court and adequately pres ents on appeal[.]” Berna v. Chater , 101 F.3d 631, 632 (10th Cir. 1996). In the distr ict court, plaintiff’s case was referred to a magistrate judge for a report andrecommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. In the first paragraph of his rep ort and recommendation, the magistrate judge notified the parties that the fail ure to file written objections to his findings and recommendations within ten days wo uld waive appellate review. Plaintiff, however, failed to file any objections t o the magistrate’s report. “[W]e, like numerous other circuits, have adopted ‘ a firm waiver rule’ that ‘provides that the failure to make timely objection s to the magistrate’s findings or3--

recommendations waives appellate review of both fac tual and legal questions.’” United States v. One Parcel of Real Property , 73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir.) (quoting Moore v. United States , 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991)), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 271 (1996). “[W]aiver principles deve loped in other litigation contexts are equally applicable to social security cases,” James v. Chater , 96 F.3d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1996), including waiver arisi ng from the claimant’s failure to file an adequate objection to the magistrate’s r eport and recommendation, see Soliz v. Chater , 82 F.3d 373, 375-76 (10th Cir. 1996). Here, plaintiff concedes that her failure to file o bjections to the magistrate’s report precludes her appeal, and we co nclude that “the interests of justice do not dictate lifting the bar of appellate review,” id. at 376. Therefore, we must AFFIRM the judgment of the United States Di strict Court for the District of New Mexico.

Entered for the Court

Deanell Reece Tacha Circuit Judge