that [section 636(b)(1) ] requires some lesser review by the district court when no objections are filed.”). In this vein, the First Circuit observed: Plaintiff also objects to the award of statutory costs to defendant DiMeo. Unfortunately, his objection comes too late. After the magistrate-judge issued his report, plaintiff had ten days to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation. We find no evidence in the record that plaintiff objected to the magistrate-judge’s findings and recommended disposition. Failure to raise objections to the Report and Recommendation waives the party’s right to review in the district court.... Davet v. Maccarone, 973 F.2d 22, 30-31 (1st Cir.1992) (citations omitted); see 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 objections are required when challenging findings actually set out in a magistrates recommendation as well as the magistrates failure to make additional findings holding that it is the commissioners findings of fact to the extent they modify or replace the administrative law judges findings that are relevant on appeal holding that the lower courts findings were insufficient as a matter of law and remanding for the court to make the findings required under ars  25403 holding that objections are required to challenge magistrate judges findings as well as magistrates failure to make additional findings