Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition, filed September 19, 2013 (Doc. 85)(“PFRD”), which recommends denying: (i) Plaintiff Francisco S. Archuleta’s Pro Se Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint Pursuant To Rule 15(a)(2) F.R.C.P., filed September 6, 2012 (Doc. 68)(“First Motion for Leave”); and (ii) Francis S. Archuleta’s Pro Se Motion for Leave to File Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint, filed November 8, 2012 (Doc. 76)(“Second Motion for Leave”). The time for filing objections expired October 7, 2013. No party has filed objections. Pursuant to the Tenth Circuit’s firm waiver rule, the failure to object to the PFRD precludes any appellate review of factual and legal questions related to the PFRD. Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed Judge
holding that under the firm waiver rule a partys failure to timely object to the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions internal quotation  marks omitted holding that failure to object in a timely fashion to a magistrate judges report and recommendation generally constitutes a waiver of the defaulting partys right to appeal provided that the parties received clear notice of the consequences of their failure to object holding that under current eleventh circuit rule the failure to object limits the scope of our appellate review to plain error review of the magistrate judges factual findings  however failure to object to the magistrate judges legal conclusions does not preclude the party from challenging those conclusions on appeal holding that under the firm waiver rule a party who fails to make a timely objection to the magistrate judges findings and recommendations waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions holding failure to timely object to magistrate judges recommendation waives appellate review of factual and legal questions