whether [Ms.] Rittenhouse acted with deliberate indifference. [Mr. Sparks] merely alleges that his medical condition was treated differently by different medical personnel.” Id. The magistrate judge recommended that Mr. Sparks’s complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, because his “allegations, at most, accuse [Ms.] Rittenhouse of negligence in failing to timely notify [Mr. Sparks] that Colorado Access denied his recommended surgery.” Id. at 5. The magistrate judge also recommended that the October Motion to Amend be denied as moot. Mr. Sparks filed objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendations, reiterating his previous claims and thereby preserving them for appeal. Cf. Sealock v. Colorado, 218 F.3d 1205, 1209 (10th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). The objections discussed the factual
holding failure to timely object to magistrate judges recommendation waives appellate review of factual and legal questions holding an argument waived on appeal for failure to raise the issue in objection to the magistrates recommendation holding that failure to object to magistrate judges recommendation waived issue on appeal 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 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