A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue c o n s is te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### N ove m b e r 5, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT E U G E N IO N A V A R R O J R .,

P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, N o. 07- 1244 v. ( D . C ol or ado) JO H N B L O O R , m e d ica l d o c to r a t sta te h o s p i t a l f

r o m P u e b l o ; CARY S H A M E S , m e d ica l d o c to r a t sta te hos pi t al fr om Puebl o, D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees. ( D. C. No . 0 6 - c v - 1 5 7 7 - W YD- BNB)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e LU CE RO , HA RTZ , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. A p p ell an t E u g en io N av arro , Jr. i s an i nm at e i n the cus t odyof the C ol or ado De p a r t me n to f

Co r r e c t i o n s . I n Au g u s t2 0 0 6 h e fi l e d a c l a i m u n d e r4 2 U. S . C. § 1983 i n the U nit ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rtfor the D i stri ctof C olor ado against D r . J ohn B l oor , D r . C arySham es , and other s . H e w as perm i t t ed t o pr ocee d in-2-

fo rm a p a up e ris . O n February1, 2007, al l defe ndant s butD r s . B l oorand Shames w er e di s m i s s ed. O n F e b ru a ry8 , 2 0 0 7 , the d istric t co u rt o rd e re d th e U n ited S tate s M a rsh a l to e ffe c t s e rv ic e u p o n D rs . B lo o r a n d S h a m e s . T he mar s hal att empt ed s ervi ce upon them atthe C ol or ado M ent al H eal th I ns t i tut e atPuebl o, t he addr es s t hat M r . N avarr o had pr ovi ded i n hi s compl ai nt ; butt he mar s hal w as i nform ed that theyno l ongerw or ked ther e and thatt hei rcurr entaddr es s es w er e notknow n. On M ar ch 8 the s um m ons es w er e r eturned unexe cut ed. O n A pr i l 2 a magi s tr at e j udge or der ed M r . N avarr o t o s how caus e, on or befor e A pr i l 30, w hyhi s amended compl ai nts houl d notbe di s m i s s ed. In re sp o n se M r. N a v a rro sta ted th a t h e w o u ld lik e to p u t fo rth g re a ter e ffo rt in l o c a t i n g th e d e fe n d a n t s , b u tc o u l d n o td o s o b e c a u s e h e wa s i n c a r c e r a t e d . He sta ted th a t h e w a s “ c o n sid e rin g ” re q u e stin g a p riv a te in v e stig a to r a n d a tto rn e yto a s s is t h im in lo c a tin g th e d e fe n d a n ts . R . V ol. I, D oc. 23 at1. B ecause M r . N avarr o had noty ets erved the defendant s , had notes t abl i s hed good ca us e for th a t fa ilu re , an d h a d n o t “in d ica ted th a t h e a c tu a llyh a s o r w ill tak e ste p s to lo c a te the defendant s , ” R . V ol . I , D oc. 24 at2, t he magi s tr at e j udge r ecomm ended that h is c o m p la in t b e d is m is s e d . T h e re c o m m e n d a tio n in fo rm e d M r. N a v a rro th a t th e p a rties h a v e 1 0 d a y s a f ter se rv ice o f

th is re c o m m e n d a tio n to s erve and f

i l e s peci fi c, w r i t t en obj ect i ons . A party ’ s fai l ur e t o s erve and fi l e speci fi c, w ri t t en o bject i on s w ai ves de novo r evi ew of the re c o m m e n d a tio n b yth e d istric t ju d g e . . . an d a lso w a iv e s a p p e llate revi ew of b oth factual and l egal quest i on s.-3-

Id . at 2– 3 (cit ati o n o m itted). M r. N a v a rro filed a m o tio n fo r e x ten sio n o f tim e to l ocat e the defendant s , butfi l ed no w r i t t en obj ect i on. O n M ay8, 2007, t he di s t r i ct courtadopt ed the r ecomm endat i on and di s m i s s ed the compl ai ntw i thoutpr ej udi ce. M r. N avarr o ap peals .

“ T h is c o u rt h a s a d o p ted a firm w a iv e r ru le u n d e r w h ich a p a rtyw h o fa ils to m ake a t i m el yobj ect i on t o t he magi s tr at e j udge’ s fi ndi ngs and r ecomm endat i ons w ai ves appel l at e r evi ew of both fac tual and l egal ques t i ons . ” Mor al es - Fer nandez v . I NS , 418 F. 3d 1116, 1119 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . U nl es s t he i nt er es t s of j us t i ce r equi r e otherw i s e, the w ai verrul e appl i es equal l yt o pr o s e l i t i gant s , pr ovi ded that the magi s tr at e j udge i nform s them of “t he t i m e per i od forobj ect i ng and the cons equenc es of fa i l i ng t o obj ect . ” Id . T he magi s tr at e j udge cl ear l yi nform ed M r . N avarr o of both t he t i m e per i od forobj ect i ng and the cons equenc es for fai l i ng t o do s o. T hus , w e nee d cons i deronl yt he i nt er es t s of j us t i ce. I n Mor al es - Fer nandezw e e x p lain e d th a t “th e in ter e sts o f ju stic e a n a ly sis w e have devel oped . . . i s s i m i l art o r evi ew i ng forpl ai n err or . ” Id . a t 1 1 2 0 .

“ P lain e rro r o c c u rs w h e n th e re is (1 ) e rro r (2 ) th a t is p lain , w h ich (3 ) a ffe c ts su b sta n tial rig h ts, a n d w h ich (4 ) se rio u slya ffe c ts th e fa irn e ss , inte g rity , o r p u b lic r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” Un itedS ta tes v . G o n za les -Hu e rta , 403 F. 3d 7 2 7 , 7 3 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). W e s e e n o p la in e rr o r h e re . In d e e d , w e s e e n o e rr o r. See S cottv. Hern , 216 F. 3d 897, 912 ( 10th C i r . 2000) ( “W e r evi ew forabus e of di s cr et i on a di s t r i ct-4-

court ’ s di s m i s s al forfai l ur e t o effects ervi ce. ”) . Som e ni ne mont hs aft erthe compl ai nthad bee n fi l ed, ther e w as no cert ai n pr os pectthatthe tw o r emai ni ng defe ndant s w oul d be s erved. M r . N avarr o had notdemonstr at ed pas tdi l i gence or anys ens e of ur gency . N orhas he ar gued i n di s tr i ctcour toron appea l thatthe d i s mi s s a l wi th o u tp r ej u d i c e wo u l d c r e a t e a l i mi t a t i o n s - p e r i o d p r o b l e m fo rh i m. R a th e r th a n c lu tterin g th e d o c k e t w ith a n in a c tiv e c a se , the d istric t co u rt c o u ld q u ite p ro p e rl yd is m is s it w ith o u t p reju d ic e . W e A FFIRM t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s rul i ng. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT H a rris L H a rtz C i r cui tJ udge