but take notice. In both cases, Mr. Price plainly registered his dissatisfaction with the magistrate judge’s recommendations. But, rather than identify any issue of law or fact which he contends was erroneously handled by the magistrate judge, Mr. Price devoted the bulk of his filings in both matters to inveighing against the judges handling his matters, seeking an end to the “corruption” of the courts, a change of venue to review his claims, and the appointment of a special judge to handle his claims. Even viewing these pro se pleadings with the generosity that is then-due, we do not see how they come close to satisfying our requirement that an objection to a magistrate judge’s report be made with specificity. See, e.g., Zumwalt v. Astrue, 220 Fed.Appx. 770, 777-78 (10th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); Whitehead v. Okla. Gas & Elec. Co., 187 F.3d
holding a contemporaneous objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review holding an argument waived on appeal for failure to raise the issue in objection to the magistrates recommendation holding a onesentence conclusory objection to an issue in the magistrates recommendation insufficient to preserve that issue for appeal holding that petitioners general objection to each and every recommendation was not specific enough to preserve an issue under section 10e recognizing that conclusory statements do not preserve an issue for appeal