Appellate Case: 25-5038 Document: 25 Date Filed: 11/18/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT November 18, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court JARRIN JACKSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. No. 25-5038 (D.C. No. 4:24-CV-00379-JFH-CDL) KELLY GREENOUGH; M. JOHN KANE, (N.D. Okla.) IV; GENTNER DRUMMOND,

Defendants - Appellees.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

JARRIN JACKSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. No. 25-5040 (D.C. No. 4:24-CV-00449-JFH-CDL) M. JOHN KANE, IV, Chief Judge OK (N.D. Okla.) Supreme Court; TRACY PRIDDY, Tulsa District Judge; TAMMY BRUCE, Tulsa District Judge; DUSTIN ROWE, OK Supreme Court Justice; YVONNE KAUGER, OK Supreme Court Justice; JAMES WINCHESTER, OK Supreme Court Justice; JAMES EDMONDSON, OK Supreme Court Justice; DOUGLAS COMBS, OK Supreme Court Justice; NOMA GURICH, OK Supreme Court Justice; RICHARD DARBY, OK Supreme Court Justice; DANA KUEHN, OK Supreme Court Justice,

Defendants - Appellees.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Appellate Case: 25-5038 Document: 25 Date Filed: 11/18/2025 Page: 2

JARRIN JACKSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. No. 25-5041 (D.C. No. 4:24-CV-00456-JFH-CDL) DUSTIN ROWE; YVONNE KAUGER; (N.D. Okla.) JAMES WINCHESTER; JAMES EDMONDSON; DOUGLAS COMBS; NOMA GURICH; RICHARD DARBY; DANA KUEHN; M. JOHN KANE, IV; TAMMY BRUCE,

Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before HARTZ, EID, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

In these three related appeals, Jarrin Jackson, proceeding pro se, 1 appeals the

dismissal of his civil actions against various judges and attorneys connected with the

Tulsa County District Court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

affirm.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined *

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

Because Mr. Jackson proceeds pro se, we construe his arguments liberally, 1

but we “cannot take on the responsibility of serving as [his] attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).

2 Appellate Case: 25-5038 Document: 25 Date Filed: 11/18/2025 Page: 3

Mr. Jackson is a party in state tort proceedings in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Dissatisfied with the Tulsa County District Court’s resolution of those proceedings,

he brought three actions in the Northern District of Oklahoma, naming as defendants

various Oklahoma state judges and lawyers with the Oklahoma Attorney General’s

office. In each case, the defendants moved to dismiss, and the district court judge

referred the motions to a magistrate judge for a report and recommendation.

The magistrate judge’s jurisdiction in each case arose under the Federal

Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C § 636, and, in each case, the magistrate judge

recommended dismissal of Mr. Jackson’s claims. Each report and recommendation

advised Mr. Jackson he had fourteen days to file any objections, on penalty of

waiver. Mr. Jackson did not file a timely response to any report and

recommendation. 2 Thereafter, the district court dismissed the claims in each

complaint. These appeals followed.

This court has adopted the firm-waiver rule, under which “the failure to make

timely objection to the magistrate’s findings or recommendations waives appellate

review of both factual and legal questions.” Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991). The firm-waiver rule “does not apply, however, when (1) a pro

se litigant has not been informed of the time period for objecting and the

consequences of failing to object, or when (2) the interests of justice require review.”

2 In the case underlying appeal No. 25-5038, Mr. Jackson did file a response to the report and recommendation, but he filed it three days late—outside the fourteen-day period prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

3 Appellate Case: 25-5038 Document: 25 Date Filed: 11/18/2025 Page: 4

Morales-Fernandez v. INS, 418 F.3d 1116, 1119 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation

marks omitted).

The Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the firm-waiver rule in

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985). See id. (“[A] court of appeals may adopt a

rule conditioning appeal, when taken from a district court judgment that adopts a

magistrate’s recommendation, upon the filing of objections with the district court

identifying those issues on which further review is desired. Such a rule, at least when

it incorporates clear notice to the litigants and an opportunity to seek an extension of

time for filing objections, is a valid exercise of the supervisory power that does not

violate either the Federal Magistrates Act or the Constitution.”).

Mr. Jackson failed to make timely objections to any of the recommendations of

the magistrate judge. The magistrate judge included the appropriate advisement in

each report and recommendation, so the first exception does not apply. And

Mr. Jackson offers no basis to conclude the second exception would apply, nor is any

basis readily apparent.

Because, by operation of the firm-waiver rule, Mr. Jackson has waived

appellate review in all three cases (Appeal Nos. 25-5038, 25-5040, and 25-5041), we

affirm the district court’s judgments.

Entered for the Court

Allison H. Eid Circuit Judge

4