* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the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

RITA P. DANNENBERG,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

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

Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-6312 (D.C. No. CIV-94-1261-W) (W.D. Okla.)

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. See Fed. 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 application for supplemental security income. The Secretary concluded that plaintiff could perform her past rel evant work despite her impairments and, therefore, denied benefits at step four of the sequential analysis. See generallyWilliams v. Bowen , 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1988) (discussing sequential analysis). On appeal, plaintiff argues that the Secretary fail ed to give proper weight to the opinions of plaintiff’s treating physicians andthat, when properly evaluated, the medical evidence establishes that plaintiff can not return to her past relevant work. “The scope of our review, however, is limite d to the issues the claimant properly preserves in the district court and adequately presents on appeal[.]” Berna v. Chater , 101 F.3d 631, 632 (10th Cir. 1996). In the distr ict court, this case was referred to a magistrate judge for a report and recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). At the conclusion of his report recommending that the Secretary’s decision be affirmed, the magistrate ju dge advised plaintiff that “failure to make timely objection to this Report an d Recommendation waives [plaintiff’s] right to appellate review of both fac tual and legal questions. Moore3--

v. United States of America , 950 F.2d 656 (10th Cir. 1991).” Appellant’s App. , Vol. I at 17. Despite this warning, plaintiff did not file any objections to the magistrate’s report and recommendation, which the d istrict court subsequently adopted. “[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 or 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 , 950 F.2d at 659), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 271 (1996). Plaintiff contends that we should make an exception to the wa iver rule in this instance, however, because this case involves the denial of s ocial security benefits and because the district court’s order states that the court reviewed the record de novo before adopting the magistrate judge’s report and r ecommendation. We are not persuaded by either of these contentions. First, we have previously applied a variety of gene ral waiver principles to social security cases, see generallyBerna , 101 F.3d at 632-33, including the principle that the failure to file a proper objecti on to the magistrate judge’s report waives appellate review, see Soliz v. Chater , 82 F.3d 373, 375-76 (10th Cir. 1996). Second, to preserve the important policies underlying the waiver rule, we have declined to suspend its application to a party who fails to file a proper4--

objection to the magistrate judge’s report, even wh en the district court has reviewed the record de novo, see One Parcel of Real Property , 73 F.3d at
1060-61. Accordingly, we conclude that plaintiff waived appe llate review of her challenges to the Secretary’s denial of benefits by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of O klahoma is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Deanell Reece Tacha Circuit Judge