Judge, filed Dec. 1, 2008 (citing, inter alia, McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 811-12 (10th Cir. 1997))); see R. at 97-98 (Order Adopting and Affirming Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, filed Dec. 29, 2008, 2008 WL 5411474). 3 . On May 18, 2009, Mr. Portley-El also filed a petition for a determination. In this petition, Mr. Portley-El sought to have the district court promptly issue an order on his habeas petition. On May 18, 2009, the district court denied the petition for a determination as moot. 4 . On August 24, 2009, we entered an order directing the parties to file memoranda addressing whether Mr. Portley-El waived his appellate rights by failing to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. E.g., Morales-Fernandez v. INS, 418 F.3d 1116, 1119 (10th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). The parties filed briefs on this issue. Mr.
holding party must make timely and specific objection at trial to preserve issue for appellate review 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 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 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 failure to timely object to magistrate judges recommendation waives appellate review of factual and legal questions