|DARRELL ELLIS; GARY PENNINGTON; JOHN TAYLOR; JAMES WALLACE WOLFE; LARRY CHANEY; ARLEY LEE DUNCAN;,||
|JAMES M. BROWN, SR., Oklahoma Pardon & Parole Board; CLINTON JOHNSON, Oklahoma Pardon & Parole Board; RICHARD L. DUGGER, Oklahoma Pardon & Parole Board; SUSAN B. LOVING, Oklahoma Pardon & Parole Board; LYNNELL HARKINS, Oklahoma Pardon & Parole Board; TERRY JENKS, Oklahoma Pardon & Parole Board,|
Proceeding pro se, Darrell Ellis and five other Oklahoma state prisoners ("Plaintiffs") appeal the district court's sua sponte dismissal of the civil rights complaint they brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the complaint, Plaintiffs challenged Oklahoma's parole procedures. In a comprehensive Report and Recommendation, the federal magistrate judge concluded Plaintiffs were seeking to relitigate issues and claims that had already been decided unfavorably to them by the Oklahoma state courts. The magistrate recommended dismissing Plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The magistrate judge clearly advised Plaintiffs that the failure to make a timely objection to the Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues addressed therein. Only Plaintiff Ellis filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation.(1) Ellis asserted the Oklahoma courts failed to provide him with a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claims. Concluding to the contrary, the district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed the complaint.
We have reviewed the record, the appellate brief, and the applicable law and can discern no reversible error by the district court. Accordingly, the dismissal of Ellis' § 1983 complaint is affirmed for substantially the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation dated November 28, 2006, and the district court's order dated January 3, 2007.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
*.This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.
1.Ellis purported to file objections on behalf of himself and plaintiffs Pennington, Taylor, Chaney, Wolfe, and Duncan. This court has held, however, that "[a] litigant may bring his own claims to federal court without counsel, but not the claims of others." Fymbo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 213 F.3d 1320, 1321 (10th Cir. 2000). Because the issues raised in this appeal come under our firm waiver rule, we dismiss the appeals of Pennington, Taylor, Chaney, Wolfe, and Duncan. See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).