* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the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

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

### JUN 25 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

STEVE WILLIAMS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v. ROBERT FURLONG, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,

Respondents-Appellees. No. 97-1317 (D.C. No. 95-K-2654) (D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA , LOGAN , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Petitioner appeals the district court’s order denyi ng his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . Petitioner pled guilty to two counts of first degree sexual assault in state court, for which he received two consecutive thirty-year sentences. After exhaustin g his state remedies, petitioner filed the present habeas petition seeking to set as ide his guilty plea on the ground that it was a product of the constitutionally ineff ective assistance of his trial counsel. The district court appointed counsel to r epresent petitioner in the habeas proceedings and the magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing on petitioner’s claims. Thereafter, the magistrate judge issued a lengthy report recommending that habeas relief be denied. Four weeks later, th e district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and di smissed the habeas petition. This appeal followed. As an initial matter, we must consider whether peti tioner has properly preserved his arguments for appellate review. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation explicitly directed the parties to s erve and file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendation within ten days, and warned them that the “[f]ailure to make timely objections to th e magistrate judge’s recommendation may result in a waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the district court based on the findings and recomm endations of the magistrate-3-

judge.” R., Vol. I, Doc. 59 at 30. Petitioner, ho wever, failed to file any objections to the magistrate judge’s report and rec ommendation. “It is settled Tenth Circuit law that when a party fails to object to the magistrate’s findings and recommendations within th e appropriate time, he or she waives the right to appellate review.” Trierweiler v. Croxton & Trench Holding Corp. , 90 F.3d 1523, 1533 (10th Cir. 1996). We may make an exception to this firm waiver rule when the interests of justice so require. See, e.g. , Moore v. United States , 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991). No exceptionto the waiver rule is warranted in this case, however. Therefore, the judgment of the United States Distri ct Court for the District of Colorado is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Deanell Reece Tacha Circuit Judge