Appellate Case: 24-3162 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT September 16, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court CESAR RAMON MARTINEZ OLIVARES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. No. 24-3162 (D.C. No. 2:24-CV-02191-HLT-ADM) HARVESTLAND CONSTRUCTORS (D. Kan.) INC.,

Defendant - Appellee. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, BACHARACH, and EID, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

This appeal addresses issues involving service of process and waiver

of rights when an appellant fails to timely object to a magistrate judge’s

recommendation.

* Mr. Martinez Olivares hasn’t said whether he requests oral argument. (When asked, he responded “Petition for Writ of Certiorari.” Appellant’s Br. at 4.) But we conclude that oral argument would not help us decide the appeal. So we have decided the appeal based on the record and Mr. Martinez Olivares’ brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).

This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if otherwise appropriate. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). Appellate Case: 24-3162 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2025 Page: 2

Mr. Cesar Ramon Martinez Olivares sued Harvestland Constructors,

Inc., but he didn’t serve Harvestland in the allotted time period. So the

magistrate judge recommended dismissal. After receiving the

recommendation, Mr. Martinez Olivares failed to timely object; and the

district judge adopted the recommendation and dismissed the action. This

dismissal underlies the appeal.

When a party fails to timely object to a magistrate judge’s

recommendation, we generally find a waiver of the right to appellate

review. United States v. B.N.M., 107 F.4th 1152, 1168 (10th Cir. 2024).

But this general practice has two exceptions: (1) when the district court

fails to tell pro se litigants the deadline to object and the consequences of

a failure to object, and (2) when the interests of justice require review.

Duffield v. Jackson, 545 F.3d 1234, 1237 (10th Cir. 2008).

Mr. Martinez Olivares reargues the merit of his underlying claims,

but he doesn’t defend his failure to timely object to the magistrate judge’s

recommendation or invoke either exception to our general practice

recognizing a waiver. The first exception doesn’t apply. Though

Mr. Martinez Olivares was pro se, the magistrate judge stated that (1) an

objection was due in fourteen days and (2) a failure to timely object would

waive his right to appellate review. Nor does the second exception apply

because Mr. Martinez Olivares made no effort to object, failed to explain

why he hadn’t objected, and didn’t identify an important interest

2 Appellate Case: 24-3162 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2025 Page: 3

supporting consideration of the merits. 1 Because the exceptions don’t

apply, we find that Mr. Martinez Olivares has waived his right to appeal.

Given this waiver, we dismiss the appeal. 2

Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge

1 When a party timely objects, the district judge must conduct de novo review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). But when there’s no objection, the district judge can apply any standard deemed appropriate. Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) adv. comm. note (stating that when no timely objection is filed, the district court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation”).

The district judge applied de novo review even though Mr. Martinez Olivares hadn’t objected. But the district judge’s application of de novo review doesn’t affect the applicability of our general practice recognizing a waiver of appellate review. Vega v. Suthers, 195 F.3d 573, 580–81 (10th Cir. 1999). 2 We grant Mr. Martinez Olivares’ motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of costs and fees. 3