As noted above, we do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. Miller, 449 F.3d at 1150 n. 1. Even under a liberal construction of Cranford’s objections to the magistrate’s report and recommendation, he failed to argue that the report and recommendation violated the principle of judicial neutrality, or that the dismissal of his complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B) would violate his constitutional right to equal protection. Accordingly, we do not consider these arguments. See Miller, 449 F.3d at 1150 n. 1. AFFIRMED. 1 . In this regard, we note that at least two circuit appellate courts have indicated that the type of interlibrary loan system described by Cranford may not meet constitutional demands. See Trujillo v. 'Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1214, 1218, 1226 (10th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Corgain v. Miller, 708 F.2d 1241, 1244, 1250
holding that the district court erred in dismissing the prisoners accesstothecourts claim as his allegation that he could not obtain state research materials without first providing an exact legal citation for the material he desired may state a viable claim of denial of access to the courts holding that although that the district court erred in finding that plaintiffs lacked standing the appellate court may nonetheless proceed to consider the district courts determination that plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted recognizing right of prisoners to seek relief under 42 usc  1983 for denial of access to the courts holding that inmates allegation that guards destroyed his legal materials in retaliation for his filing of suits and grievances stated a cognizable first amendment claim holding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of the right to access to the courts based on allegations that the defendants confiscated their litigation materials absent any allegation that such materials were critical to pursuing the plaintiffs underlying claims