FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

AUG 3 1999

PATRICK FISHER
Clerk

	UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

ARDIE D. NOLON,

		Plaintiff - Appellant,	

No. 98-6443	
	v.	(W.D.  Oklahoma)	
TOM C. MARTIN, FRANKLIN FREEMAN, SUSAN WINCHESTER, JODY C. McMILLIN,

		Defendants - Appellees.	(D.C. No. CV-97-959-A)	

	ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before ANDERSON, KELLY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

	

	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.
	Ardie D. Nolon, a North Carolina state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming that officials and employees of the Great Plains Correctional Facility (GPCF), a private prison facility in Hinton, Oklahoma, and the former secretary of the North Carolina Department of Corrections violated his civil rights.  He now appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.  We affirm.
	Nolon claims that the defendants violated the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws when they allegedly illegally kidnaped him from a North Carolina prison and transferred him to GPCF where he was incarcerated for approximately thirteen months.  He further alleges that, during his incarceration at GPCF, facility officials and employees violated his constitutional rights, including his rights under the Due Process Clause and the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.  Following the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the matter was referred to a magistrate judge who issued a report recommending that the defendants’ motion be granted.  R. Tab 48.  Thereafter, Nolon filed a general objection to the magistrate judge’s report.R. Tab 52.
	The district court noted that Nolon’s objection was ineffective.  R. Vol. I, Tab 53 at 1 (citing United States v. One Parcel of Real Property, 73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996)).  Finding that Nolon had “waived any further review by this Court of the factual and legal issues contained in the recommendation,” the district court nonetheless conducted a de novo review before adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.  Id. at 1-2.
	As the district court correctly noted, our opinion in One Parcel of Real Property, 73 F.3d at 1060, provides that “a party’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for . . . appellate review.”  Thus, Nolon’s general objection is not sufficient to preserve the specific issues he attempts to raise on appeal.  Moreover, having reviewed the record, we conclude that the interests of justice do not warrant lifting the bar of appellate review here.  See One Parcel of Real Property, 73 F.3d at 1060‑61; Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).  Accordingly, we hold that Nolon has waived appellate review by failing to make specific objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and, therefore, we do not address his arguments.  
	AFFIRMED.
	ENTERED FOR THE COURT

	Stephen H. Anderson
	Circuit Judge