Armelin v. Donahoe , 515 F. App'x 760 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                              FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS       Tenth Circuit
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         May 21, 2013
    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court
    DALE P. ARMELIN,
    Plaintiff–Appellant,
    v.                                                        No. 12-1483
    (D.C. No. 1:11-CV-02823-CMA-KMT)
    PATRICK R. DONAHOE, Postmaster                             (D. Colo.)
    General; UNITED STATES POSTAL
    SERVICE,
    Defendants–Appellees.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
    Before LUCERO, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.
    Dale Armelin appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his complaint as
    untimely filed. We dismiss the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as
    frivolous.
    *
    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist 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 This order and judgment is not binding
    precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
    I
    Armelin filed suit against his former employer, the United States Postal
    Service, alleging race and color discrimination, and retaliation during his
    employment. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim
    under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that Armelin had failed to
    exhaust and that the complaint was untimely filed. Armelin admitted in his response
    that his complaint was untimely because he wrote down the wrong deadline on his
    calendar.
    A magistrate judge recommended that the motion to dismiss be granted,
    concluding that the complaint was untimely and that Armelin was not entitled to
    equitable tolling. Armelin filed objections to the recommendation, but he did not
    challenge the basis of the recommendation or the magistrate judge’s equitable tolling
    conclusion. The district court summarily adopted the magistrate judge’s
    recommendation and dismissed the complaint. It also denied Armelin’s request to
    proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), holding that an appeal would not be taken in good
    faith. Armelin appeals.
    II
    We conclude that Armelin has waived the arguments he seeks to advance on
    appeal by failing to present those arguments in his objections to the magistrate
    judge’s recommendation. “[W]e have adopted a firm waiver rule when a party fails
    to object to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate.” Duffield v.
    -2-
    Jackson, 
    545 F.3d 1234
    , 1237 (10th Cir. 2008) (quotation omitted). “The failure to
    timely object to a magistrate’s recommendations waives appellate review of both
    factual and legal questions.” 
    Id. (quotation omitted). “There
    are two exceptions
    when the firm waiver rule does not apply: 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.” 
    Id. (quotation omitted). Neither
    exception applies in this case.
    Armelin argued in his objections that his complaint had merit. But he did not
    present any argument challenging the magistrate judge’s analysis or recommendation
    as to timeliness and equitable tolling. (Nor could he, given his concession that he
    had simply made a mistake about the filing deadline.) By failing to object to the
    basis of the magistrate judge’s recommendation for dismissal, Armelin has waived
    our review. See Gardner v. Galetka, 
    568 F.3d 862
    , 871 (10th Cir. 2009).
    III
    Because Armelin has not advanced a reasoned, non-frivolous argument on
    appeal, the appeal is DISMISSED, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), and we DENY his
    motion to proceed IFP, see DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 
    937 F.2d 502
    , 505 (10th Cir.
    1991).
    Entered for the Court
    Carlos F. Lucero
    Circuit Judge
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-1483

Citation Numbers: 515 F. App'x 760

Judges: Lucero, Anderson, Baldock

Filed Date: 5/21/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024