T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of * t he ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s ; nevert hel es s , an or derm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s t hr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a s s is ta n c e in th e d e te rm in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u 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. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t10,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT EN CI SO RO D RI G O A CE V ES,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, N o. 06- 2017 v . (D . o f N .M .) GARLAND J EF F ERS a n d R. RO DR I GU EZ,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. ( D. C. No . CV- 0 3 - 3 6 5 - J B)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efo re HA RTZ , EBEL , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. ** E n c iso R o d rig o A c e v e s, a fo rm e r fe d e ra l p riso n e r a p p e a rin g p ro se , ap p e a ls t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s ci vi l r i ght s compl ai nt . B eca us e w e fi nd that A ceve s fai l ed t o t i m el yobj ectt o the magi s tr at e j udge’ s pr opos ed fi ndi ngs and r ecomm ended di s pos i t i on, w e affi r m t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or der . W e furtherdeny A ceve s ’ m ot i on t o pr ocee d i n form a p auperis.C C C C , pur s uantt o a contr actw i th the Feder al B ur eau of Pr i s ons , hous es 1 l ow -s ecuri t ycri m i nal al i en fe deral i nm at es. -2- I . Backg r ound E nr i co R odr i go A ceve s s erved 77 mont hs att he C i bol a C ountyC orr ect i onal C e n ter (“ C C C C ” ) in M ilan , N e w M e x ico fo r illeg a l re e n try . D u rin g h is 1 in c a rc e ra tio n , h e a lleg e s th a t p riso n o fficia ls v io late d h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts in the fo ll o w ing m an n er: (1) i m p o sing inv o lun taryserv itu d e b yfo rcing h im to w o rk i n t he pr i s on ki t chen; ( 2) fai l i ng t o pr ovi de ade quat e medi cal car e; ( 3) deny i ng h im a p o sitio n in th e lib ra ry ; (4 ) d e n y in g h im a tra n sfe r to a fe d e ra l fa c ili ty ; (5 ) d e n y in g h im m e e tin g s w ith v a rio u s p riso n a n d sta te o fficia ls; (6 ) u nju stifiab ly s e g re g a tin g h im f

ro m th e p ri s o n p o p u la tio n ; a n d (7 ) p h y s ic a lly a b u s in g h im . B as ed on thes e cl ai m s , he fi l ed a c i vi l r i ght s act i on under42 U . S. C . § 1983 i n t he D i s t r i ctof N ew M exi co. A m agi s tr at e j udge r ecomm ended thatA ceve s ’ cl ai m of i nvol unt arys ervi tude be di s m i s s ed forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef c a n b e g ra n ted , an d th a t A c e v e s’ r e m a in in g c laim s b e d ism iss e d fo r fa ilu re to exhaus t . A ceve s fai l ed t o r es pond t o the magi s tr at e’ s r ecomm endat i on and the di s t r i ctcourts ubs equent l yadopt ed the s ame. II . A n a ly sis W e c o n s tru e a p ro s e p la in tiff ’s c o m p la in t lib e ra lly. C um m i ngs v. E vans , 1 6 1 F .3 d 6 1 0 , 6 1 3 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). N o n e th e les s, w h e re a p ro se p lain tiff fa ils to tim e lyfile o bjec tio n s to a m a g istra te’ s re c o m m e n d a tio n , the p lain tiff w a iv e s h is-3-

ri g h t to a p p e lla te re v ie w . Theede v . U. S. D ep’ tof Labor , 172 F. 3d 1262, 1267 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). T h is “ firm w a iv e r” ru le a p p lies so lo n g a s th e p ro se p lain tiff is p ro p e rlyin fo rm e d o f

th e c o n se q u e n c e s o f

fa ili n g to o bjec t. Id . a t 1 2 6 8 . H er e, i n a footnot e on the fi r s tpage of t he magi s tr at e’ s r ecomm endat i on, t he courts t at ed i n bol d, “A part ym us tfi l e anyobj ect i ons w i thi n the t en ( 10) day per i od i f thatpart yw ant s t o have appel l at e r evi ew of the Pr opos ed Fi ndi ngs and R ecomm ended D i s pos i t i on. I f no obj ect i ons ar e fi l ed, no appel l at e r evi ew w i l l be a llo w e d .” T hi s admoni t i on w as s uffi ci entt o appr i s e A ceve s of the fi r m w ai ver re q u ir e m e n t. A l t hough w e mayw ai ve the r equi r ement s of thi s rul e w her e the i nt er es t s of ju s tic e re q u ir e , id . at1268, w e fi nd no r eas on t o do s o her e. I ti s t rue thatA ceve s w a s re lea se d f

ro m p riso n w h ile h is s u it w a s p e n d in g a n d w a s s u b se q u e n tly depor t ed t o M exi co. H ow ever , he fa i l ed t o m eethi s obl i gat i on undert he l ocal rul es t o fi l e a t i m el ychange of addr es s w i th the l ow ercourt . I ndeed, he w ai t ed near l yei ghtm ont hs fr om t he t i m e of hi s r el eas e befor e fi l i ng hi s change of addr es s — near l yt hr ee mont hs aft ert he magi s tr at e’ s r ecomm endat i on w as fi l ed and overa mont h aft ert he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s or derw as fi l ed. E ven s o, t he di s tr i ct cour tgave A ceve s ampl e oppor tuni tyt o r es pond, s endi ng hi m both the m a g istra te’ s re c o m m e n d a tio n a n d th e o rd e r a d o p tin g th e sa m e o n tw o se p a ra te occasi on s, on ce t o h i s form er address and on ce t o h i s curr ent address .-4-

E v en w ere w e to find an ex ce p ti o n to the firm w aive r rule, th e d istri ct co u rt corr ect l yconcl uded thatA ceve s ’ i nvol unt arys ervi tude cl ai m s houl d be di s m i s s ed fo r fa ilu re to sta te a c laim a n d h is re m a in in g c laim s fo r fa ilu re to e x h a u st. F irst, t he courtconcl uded, and w e agr ee, a pr i s onerdoes nots t at e a c l ai m undert he T h irteen th A m en d m en t fo r i n v o lun taryserv itu d e w h ere h e is req u ir ed to w o rk w hi l e i ncar cer at ed. T he Thi r t eenth A m endmentexpl i ci t l yexempt s i ncar cer at ed pr i s oner s fr om t he i nvol unt arys ervi tude pr os cr i pt i on. Second, A ceve s has conce ded thathe di d notexhaus thi s r emai ni ng cl ai m s . T he Pr i s on L i t i gat i on R eform A ct( PL R A ) , 42 U . S. C . § 1997e( a) , r equi r es pr i s oner s t o t ot al l yand p ro p e rl ye x h a u s t c la im s b e fo re b ri n g in g s u it in fe d e ra l c o u rt . See Woodf or d v. N go , 1 2 6 S . C t. 23 7 8 (2 0 0 6 ) (re q u irin g p ro p e r e x h a u stio n ); R os s v. C ount y of B e rn a lil lo , 3 6 5 F . 3 d 1 1 8 1 , 1 1 8 9

– 9 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (r eq u ir ing total exh au sti o n ). B eca us e A ceve s has fai l ed t o do s o, al l of hi s r emai ni ng cl ai m s m us tbe di s m i s s ed. I I I . C oncl usi on A cc o rdin g ly , fo r th e re aso n s stated a b o v e, w e a ffirm the d istri ct co u rt ’s or der . W e furt herdenyA ceve s ’ m ot i on t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a u p e ris . E n tered fo r th e c o u rt

T i m othyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge