Opinion ID: 4526615
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mr. Robinson’s Claims

Text: We review a district court’s order dismissing claims as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) for an abuse of discretion. See Fogel v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252, 2 On appeal, Mr. Robinson maintains he was not at fault for failing to file a timely amended complaint. Because the district court overlooked the untimely filing and reviewed the amended complaint, timeliness “has no bearing on the ultimate outcome of this case,” and we will not address it on appeal. Orr v. City of Albuquerque, 417 F.3d 1144, 1154 (10th Cir. 2005). 3 1259 (10th Cir. 2006). If the district court based its frivolousness determination a legal determination, we review that issue de novo. Id. 1. Separation of Powers and Cruel and Unusual Punishment The magistrate judge determined the original complaint failed to assert factual allegations to support the claims of separation of powers3 or cruel and unusual punishment and recommended they be dismissed as legally frivolous. Although Mr. Robinson alludes to these claims in his brief, he has waived appellate review because he did not object to these findings and recommendations. “We have adopted a firm waiver rule when a party fails to object to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate.” Duffield v. Jackson, 545 F.3d 1234, 1237 (10th Cir. 2008) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). “The failure to timely object to a magistrate’s recommendations waived appellate review of both factual and legal questions.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). See also United States v. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996) (finding a general objection insufficient to preserve appellate review of specific issues). 2. Due Process The magistrate judge determined that “[i]n order to pursue a due process claim, [Mr. Robinson] must file an amended prisoner complaint that adequately alleges that the booking fee either deprived him of liberty or that he was entitled to a 3 We are unaware of any authority, and Robinson has cited none, that the doctrine of separation of powers is a source of individual rights actionable under § 1983. 4 refund of the booking fee but the post-deprivation remedies are inadequate.” R. at 54 (internal quotation marks omitted). In its review of the amended complaint, the district court found that Mr. Robinson “has not adequately asserted factual allegations to support a procedural due process claim for the same reasons as stated in [the magistrate judge’s recommendation]. As a result, the only claim asserted in the amended prisoner complaint suffers from the same deficiencies as the initial complaint.” Id. at 86. On appeal, Mr. Robinson fails to address these deficiencies. Instead, he argues that “[t]here should have been no such deprivation . . . to begin with.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 7. This perfunctory argument is insufficient to invoke this court’s review. See Murrell v. Shalala, 43 F.3d 1388, 1389 n.2 (10th Cir. 1994) (“[P]erfunctory” allegations of error that “fail to frame and develop an issue [are] [in]sufficient to invoke appellate review.”).