Case Name: CHICAGO INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jan B. HAMILTON, Ph.D., d/b/a Nutritional Biomedicine, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-04
Citations: 422 F. App'x 740
Docket Number: No. 10-1381
Parties: CHICAGO INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jan B. HAMILTON, Ph.D., d/b/a Nutritional Biomedicine, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 422
Pages: 740–741

Head Matter:
CHICAGO INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jan B. HAMILTON, Ph.D., d/b/a Nutritional Biomedicine, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-1381.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
May 4, 2011.
Michelle D. Mitchell, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jan Barton Hamilton, Ph.D., Aspen, CO, pro se.
Before MURPHY, HARTZ, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
NEIL M. GORSUCH, Circuit Judge.
Chicago Insurance Co. ("CIC") filed this diversity case seeking a declaratory judgment that Jan Hamilton wasn't covered for losses she incurred as a result of disciplinary proceedings brought by the Colorado State Board of Medical Examiners. When Ms. Hamilton failed to file a timely answer to CIC's complaint and missed multiple discovery deadlines, a magistrate judge recommended default judgment in favor of CIC. He advised Ms. Hamilton of her right to object to the recommendation, the deadline for doing so, and that failing to object would prejudice review in the district and appellate courts. Nonetheless, Ms. Hamilton did not file any objection. She now appeals the resulting default judgment.
Unless a party files a timely objection in the district court, she can't ordinarily challenge the magistrate's factual or legal conclusions on appeal. See Duffield v. Jackson, 545 F.3d 1234, 1237 (10th Cir.2008). But we have recognized two exceptions: 1) when a pro se litigant has not been informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences of failing to object; or 2) when the interests of justice require review. Id. Ms. Hamilton can't invoke the first exception: there's no dispute that the magistrate judge informed her both of the time period for objecting and the consequences of failing to do so. Neither can she prevail on the second. The "interest of justice" standard is, this court has held, akin to plain error review, and Ms. Hamilton simply doesn't explain how default judgment in this case — entered after she repeatedly failed to comply with the magistrate's orders — "seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings." See Morales-Fer nandez v. INS, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122-23 (10th Cir.2005).
The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Because Ms. Hamilton failed to present any nonfrivolous arguments in support of the issues on appeal, her motion to proceed informa pauperis is denied, as are all other motions pending in this case.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.