Graham v. Waters

Summary

In an unpublished opinion, the Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a pro se inmate's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Colorado Parole Board members, holding that the inmate's request for release from custody was not cognizable under §1983 (the proper remedy is habeas corpus), that Heck v. Humphrey barred damages claims challenging the validity of parole revocation, and that the defendants were entitled to absolute immunity for parole decisions and Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from official-capacity damages. The court also enforced the "firm waiver rule," refusing to review the merits because the inmate failed to file timely objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, and no exception for pro se litigants or the interests of justice applied.

Holdings

1. Under the firm waiver rule, a party who fails to file timely objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions, unless an exception applies.
2. A §1983 claim for damages that would necessarily imply the invalidity of a parole revocation is barred by Heck v. Humphrey.
3. Parole board members have absolute immunity from damages liability for actions taken in their official duties regarding the granting or denying of parole.
4. Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity bars damages claims against state officials in their official capacities.
5. A request for release from custody is not cognizable in a §1983 action; the sole remedy is habeas corpus.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court erred in dismissing Graham's §1983 claims under Heck v. Humphrey, absolute immunity, and Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.
2. Whether the firm waiver rule bars appellate review of the merits due to Graham's failure to file timely objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Graham's motion for reconsideration.

Disposition

affirmed