|DONALD E. FYMBO,
Assignee of the Claims of
JAMES HOWE; LEE A. LINDSEY; SANDRA KLINGER; GERRIT WESTERVELT; LAWLOR T. WESTERVELT, as Representatives of a Class of All Other Similarly Situated State Farm Insureds,
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY,
Donald E. Fymbo, pro se.
Michael S. McCarthy, Jeanne M. Coleman, and Christopher P. Beall, Faegre & Benson LLP, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee.
Issues not raised in plaintiff's objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation are waived on appeal. See Smith v. Kitchen, 156 F.3d 1025, 1029 (10th Cir. 1997). Mr. Fymbo objected to the magistrate judge's determination that he was not an adequate class representative but not to the dismissal of his assigned claims. See R. doc. 16. Therefore, the only issue before this court is whether the district court erred in dismissing the complaint because Mr. Fymbo was not capable of representing the putative class. We review the dismissal of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo. See Chemical Weapons Working Group, Inc. v. United States Dep't of the Army, 111 F.3d 1485, 1490 (10th Cir. 1997). We review the district court's finding that Mr. Fymbo is not an adequate class representative for abuse of discretion. See Pilots Against Illegal Dues v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, 938 F.2d 1123, 1134 (10th Cir. 1991).
We do not hesitate to affirm the district court's decision that Mr. Fymbo cannot adequately represent the putative class. Under Rule 23(a)(4), a class representative must "fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." A litigant may bring his own claims to federal court without counsel, but not the claims of others. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654; see also 7A Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 1769.1 & n.12 (2d ed. 1986) (citing cases for rule that "class representatives cannot appear pro se"). This is so because the competence of a layman is "clearly too limited to allow him to risk the rights of others." Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975). AFFIRMED.
1. 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.