Appellate Case: 25-1292 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2025 Page: FILED 1 United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT December 5, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court ROGER DESOUSA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 25-1292 (D.C. No. 1:23-CV-03284-LTB-SBP) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; (D. Colo.) INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; STATE OF GEORGIA; STATE OF FLORIDA,

Defendants-Appellees. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before FEDERICO, BALDOCK, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ** _________________________________

Plaintiff Roger DeSousa, appearing pro se, filed a complaint for injunctive and

monetary relief in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against

Defendants United States of America, Internal Revenue Service, State of Georgia, and

State of Florida. Construing the complaint liberally, the district court discerned that

Plaintiff asserted two claims for relief, the first labeled “United Nations Human Rights

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.

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. Appellate Case: 25-1292 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2025 Page: 2

Articles 1–30” and the second labeled “42 U.S. Code 2000bb–1” (entitled “Free

exercise of religion protected”). The district court issued a show cause order directing

Plaintiff to address why his complaint should not be dismissed for improper venue.

After Plaintiff submitted a largely unintelligible six page response, a magistrate judge

recommended the complaint be dismissed for improper venue. Notably, Plaintiff did

not object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. So after fourteen (14) days, the

district court adopted the recommendation and dismissed the complaint without

prejudice. Plaintiff now appeals. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, is pending.

The Tenth Circuit has adopted a firm non-jurisdictional waiver rule under which

a party who fails to make a timely objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation

waives appellate review of both factual and legal issues. See Morales-Fernandez v.

I.N.S., 418 F.3d 1116, 1119 (10th Cir. 2005). The only exceptions are where (1) a pro

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

of failing to object, or (2) the interests of justice require review. See id. Our careful

review of the record on appeal reveals that neither exception to the waiver rule applies

in this instance. Accordingly, we DISMISS Plaintiff’s appeal on the basis of waiver.

Providing Plaintiff the benefit of a doubt, we assume (without deciding) that his appeal

is not legally frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). As such, we GRANT Plaintiff’s

motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge 2