Cruises, 316 F.3d 60, 61 (1st Cir.2003) quoting Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603, 605 (1st Cir.1980). “Absent objection by the plaintiffs, [a] district court ha[s] a right to assume that [a party] agree[s] to the magistrate’s recommendation.” Templeman v. Chris Craft Corp., 770 F.2d 245, 247 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1021, 106 S.Ct. 571, 88 L.Ed.2d 556 (1985). Moreover, “[flailure to raise objections to the Report and Recommendation waives that party’s right to review in the district court and those claims not preserved by such objection are precluded on appeal.” Davet v. Maccarone, 973 F.2d 22, 30-31 (1st Cir.1992). See also Sands v. Ridefilm Corp., 212 F.3d 657, 663 (1st Cir.2000); Henley Drilling Co. v. McGee, 36 F.3d 143, 150-151 (1st Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Lewry v. Town of Standish, 984 F.2d 25, 27
holding that objections are required when challenging findings actually set out in magistrates recommendation as well as magistrates failure to make additional findings holding that failure to object timely to a magistrates report operates as a waiver of any further judicial review of the magistrates decision holding that objections are required to challenge magistrate judges findings as well as magistrates failure to make additional findings holding that errors of law in a magistrates findings and recommendations pursuant to section 636b1b can be challenged on appeal even in the absence of the filing of objections in the district court holding an argument waived on appeal for failure to raise the issue in objection to the magistrates recommendation