defendants were properly before the court. He failed to preserve this issue in the district court. Although on appeal he has indicated that he objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendation on this issue, the magistrate judge did not address it. His objection was to the dismissal of BAC on the ground that BAC’s “involvement ... began no earlier than July of 2008 [so was not] substantially rooted in Plaintiffs pre-bankruptcy [past].” R. at 323. Mr. Clem-entson’s failure to raise this argument in the district court precludes our review of it. See Ark Initiative v. U.S. Forest Serv., 660 F.3d 1256, 1261 (10th Cir.2011) (“If the claims are not preserved in the district court, they are forfeited and may not be appealed.”); Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, BAC, who indisputably acquired
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 failure to object to magistrate judges recommendation waived issue 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 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