Opinion ID: 197805
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Dealer Act Claim

Text: 9 Although plaintiffs acknowledge their failure to raise in timely fashion--as an independent basis for their Dealer Act claim--the contention that Canon engaged in a pattern of discriminatory conduct both before and after the Systronics designation, they argue that their waiver should be excused because the magistrate judge expressly recognized such a pattern of conduct in the report and recommendation, and the district court therefore had an independent duty to scrutinize the record de novo before adopting the report and recommendation, even absent specific objection under Local Rule 510.2. We disagree. 10 The district court is under no obligation to discover or articulate new legal theories for a party challenging a report and recommendation issued by a magistrate judge. 3 Borden v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 836 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir.1987) (Appellant was entitled to a de novo review by the district court of the [magistrate's] recommendations to which he objected, however he was not entitled to a de novo review of an argument never raised.) (citation omitted). Given proper notice, see Magistrate's Report, at 10 (Failure to comply with [P.R. Local R. 510.2] precludes further appellate review.), a party's failure to assert a specific objection to a report and recommendation irretrievably waives any right to review by the district court and the court of appeals. See Henley Drilling Co. v. McGee, 36 F.3d 143, 150-51 (1st Cir.1994); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Finally, a Rule 59(e) motion is  'aimed at reconsideration, not initial consideration,'  and may not be used to argue a new legal theory. FDIC v. World Univ., Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir.1992) (citation omitted). 4 Accordingly, we affirm the summary judgment ruling dismissing the Dealer Act claim. 11