* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. This 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.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate recor d, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. Se e Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The cause is therefore ordered s ubmitted without oral argument. 

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

### AUG 25 2000 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

BILLY JOE HESS, Petitioner - Appellant, vs. STEPHEN KAISER; STATE OF OKLAHOMA, et al., Respondents - Appellees. No. 00-5022 (D.C. No. 99-CV-230-K) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRORBY , KELLY , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges. **

Petitioner-Appellant Billy Joe Hess, an inmate appe aring pro se, seeks to appeal from the denial of his habeas petit ion, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He was convicted in Oklahoma state court of one count of S econd Degree Burglary and two counts of Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. The court sentenced him to twenty years of imprisonment on each count, to b e served consecutively. Mr.- 2 -

Hess’ conviction was affirmed on direct appeal by t he Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, and the instant petition was time ly filed on March 29, 1999. Mr. Hess raised the three claims which had been den ied by the OCCA on direct appeal; namely (1) the admission of a co-defendant’ s statement violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine witne sses; (2) prosecutorial misconduct; and (3) the judge’s decision to run his sentences consecutively was excessive and should be modified to run concurrentl y. The magistrate judge recommended that Mr. Hess’ pet ition be denied on the merits. Mr. Hess sought, and received, a thirty day extension for filing his objections to the magistrate’s report. He timely f iled a “Response in Opposition to the Report and Recommendation” on January 3, 200 0, which consisted of: (1) copies of pages from his July 14, 1999 reply to the Oklahoma Attorney General’s response and from his December 19, 1997 brief befor e the OCCA; and (2) a conclusion which stated:

By all accounts, it appears that the Court have [si c] interjected his personal regards into this proceedi ng, and have [sic] failed to objectively consider the obvio us Due Process violations of Petitioner’s Rights relating to the wrongful forfeiture of his liberty in violation of those rights. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation should be overruled in its entirety. R. doc. 19 at 2. The district court held that this was merely a general objection and, after a review of the magistrate’s report, ado pted it in full.- 3 -

This Circuit follows the “firm waiver rule” which “ provides that the failure to make timely objections to the magistrate’s findi ngs or recommendations waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions.” Moore v. United States , 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991). In United States v. 2121 East 30th Street , 73 F.3d 1057 (10th Cir. 1996), we held that these objections must be specific and enable “‘the district judge to focus attention on those issues – factual and legal – that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.’” Id . at 1059 (quoting Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985)). A general objection d oes not comport with the principles of judicial economy und erlying review by the magistrate judge, and will therefore, serve as a wa iver of appellate review, absent principles of justice which warrant otherwise. Mr. Hess’ objection to the magistrate report cannotbe characterized as anything but general. The vast majority of his obj ection was nothing more than a copy of his previous briefs to the court. See 2121 East 30th Street , 73 F.3d at 1060 (holding that party’s request that district co urt reconsider the magistrate’s recommendation in light of “‘the motions, exhibits, testimony[,] briefs, and arguments’” was general and waived appellate review (citation omitted)). Moreover, Mr. Hess’ conclusion does not address any specific problem with the recommendation, but implies that the magistrate was somehow biased in his assessment. Such a conclusory allegation is not su fficient to preserve issues for1 However, even were we to reach the merits of the ca se, we would affirm

for substantially the reasons given by the magistrate judge. - 4 - appeal. In his brief requesting a certificate of appealabil ity, Mr. Hess does not point to any interests of justice which would couns el against application of the firm waiver rule to his case, and our independent r eview of the record does not reveal any. Accordingly, Mr. Hess has waived appel late review by failing to make specific objections to the magistrate’s reportand recommendation, and we do not address the merits of his claims. 1 We DENY a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal.

Entered for the Court Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge