* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

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

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### FEB 1 2000 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD J. COLLINS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. RICHARD SOARES, Warden; THOMAS BULLARD, Law Librarian; BARD ROCKWELL, Head of Legal Services; ARISTEDES W. ZAVARAS, Executive Director of D.O.C.; OFFICER FOX, C.O. of Limon Correctional Facility; John Does, if there by any, in their individual and professional capacities, Defendants-Appellees. No. 99-1348 (District of Colorado) (D.C. No. 97-B-2271)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRORBY , KELLY, and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of-2-

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Richard J. Collins, a Colorado state prisoner, file d a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint raising the following f our issues: (1) the defendants violated his Sixth Amendment right of access to the courts when they confiscated, pursuant to Colorado prison regulation 850-6, all l egal files in excess of two cubic feet; (2) the defendants violated his Sixth Amendment rights to access to the courts when they removed the Shepard’s citationservice and the Corpus Juris Secundum legal encyclopedia from the prison law library; (3 ) the defendants retaliated against him in violation of the Eighth A mendment; and (4) the defendants denied him medical treatment in violatio n of the Eighth Amendment. The district court referred Collins’ complaint to amagistrate judge for preliminary proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 . In a thorough and wellwritten Report and Recommendation (“R & R”), the ma gistrate judge recommended that the district court grant the defen dants’ motion for summary judgment. The R & R specifically informed Collins that in order to preserve his right to de novo review in the district court and his right to appe llate review of both factual and legal questions, he must file written, specific objections with the district court within ten days of service of the R & R. Rather than filing a proper objection, Collins sought an extension from the dis trict court. The district court-3-

granted Collins a lengthy extension. Five days bef ore expiration of the extended time period, Collins filed a second request for an extension. The district court granted Collins a second extension, to expire June 3, 1999, but indicated that no further extensions would be granted. On June 7th, after the second extension had already expired, and despite the district court’s a dmonition, Collins filed a third request for an extension of time within which to fi le objections to the R & R. In response, the district court noted its previous gen erosity in granting extensions and its specific admonition that no further extensi ons would be granted. Accordingly, the district court denied Collins’ req uest for a third extension, noted that Collins’ failure to timely file specific objec tions barred de novo review, and adopted the R & R. On appeal, Collins argues the merits of the summaryjudgment motion. This court has, however, adopted a “firm waiver rul e,” whereby a failure to file written objections to a magistrate judge’s R & R wa ives appellate review of both factual and legal questions. United States v. One Parcel of Real Property , 73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996). To preserve an i ssue for appellate review, an objection to a magistrate judge’s R & R must be both specific and timely. Id. at 1060. Collins failed to object to the magistrate j udge’s R & R within the ten days allowed in the R & R, plus the additional time allo wed by the district court pursuant to Collins’ motions for extension of time. Therefore, Collins has not1 After the district court entered its order adopting the R & R, Collins filed a

Rule 59 motion along with specific objections to th e R & R. In the motion, Collins asserted that his objections were late because of problems in having them copied at the prison law library on June 2 1999. I n rejecting Collins’ Rule 59 motion for reconsideration, the district court note d again that it had been generous in granting extensions and had specifically informe d Collins that no further extensions would be allowed. Accordingly, it refus ed to reconsider its ruling adopting the R & R. The district court did note, h owever, that it had conducted a de novo review of the R & R, and that Collins’ belated obj ections would not change the outcome of the case. As noted by the de fendants, this alternate holding of the district court does not in any way r evive Collins’ claims. See Vega v. Suthers , 195 F.3d 573, 579-80 (10th Cir. 1999). -4- preserved for appellate review the district court’s order and judgment granting the defendant’s summary judgement. 1 The order of the district court adopting the R & R and its judgment thereon are hereby AFFIRMED

. ENTERED FOR THE COURT:

Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge