Opinion ID: 163987
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: We must first determine whether this court has jurisdiction over the appeal. Ms. Wells did not file a notice of appeal within sixty days after the final order was entered on November 29, 2002, as required by Rule 4(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure to invoke appellate jurisdiction. She did, however, -3- file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis within the required time, which may serve as the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal. See Smith v. Barry , 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992) (holding an appellate brief filed within the allotted time can be the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal). We construe Ms. Wells’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis as a notice of appeal and exercise jurisdiction over this appeal. See Hoover v. United States , 268 F.2d 787, 789 (10th Cir. 1959) (construing timely-filed motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis as notice of appeal); see also Knox v. Wyoming , 959 F.2d 866, 868 n.1 (10th Cir. 1992) (restating rule from Hoover ). Failure to Object to Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation Next we consider whether Ms. Wells waived her right to appeal the judgment by failing to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. “Failure of a plaintiff to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendations results in a waiver of appellate review. This remains true for pro se litigants if the plaintiff was properly informed of the consequences of [her] failure to object.” Fottler v. United States , 73 F.3d 1064, 1065 (10th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). Here, however, it is not clear that Ms. Wells was informed that failing to file objections would result in a waiver of appellate review. Although the magistrate judge’s recommendation indicates that the necessary advisement -4- was attached, the record contains no such advisement. See Moore v. United States , 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991) (“This notice should be included in the text of the document containing the magistrate’s findings and recommendations.”). Accordingly, because the record does not demonstrate that Ms. Wells was properly informed of the consequences of her failure to object, we decline to apply the “firm waiver rule,” and we proceed to the merits. Cf. Theede v. United States Dep’t of Labor , 172 F.3d 1262, 1267-68 (10th Cir. 1999) (applying “firm waiver rule”). MERITS Ms. Wells alleged the following claims for relief: (1) conspiracy to violate her constitutional rights, (2) use of excessive and unreasonable force, (3) assault, (4) battery, (5) outrageous conduct, and (6) negligence.