1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 ANGELICA MARIA FRANCES, Case No. 3:25-cv-00373-ART-CLB 6 Plaintiff, ORDER 7 v.

8 FALLON NAVAL AIR STATION PERSONNEL, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Before the Court are several motions filed by Plaintiff Angelica Marie 12 Frances: (1) a motion for leave to file first amended complaint along with a 13 proposed first amended complaint (ECF Nos. 18, 18-1); (2) an IFP application 14 along with supporting documentation (ECF Nos. 19, 20, 21); and (3) several 15 motions for temporary restraining order and accompanying filings (ECF Nos. 22, 16 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28). 17 Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin issued a Report and Recommendation 18 (“R&R”) recommending that Ms. Frances’ motions be denied and this action be 19 dismissed. For the reasons cited below, this Court agrees and adopts the R&R in 20 full. 21 I. Legal Standard 22 Under the Federal Magistrates Act, a court “may accept, reject, or modify, 23 in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by [a] magistrate 24 judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's 25 report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de 26 novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which 27 objection is made.”

(b)(1). A court is not required to conduct “any 28 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. 1 Arn,

(1985). 2 Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the magistrate judge’s R&R and her 3 time to do so has now expired. (ECF No. 30.) 4 II. Analysis 5 The magistrate judge found that Ms. Frances’ allegations in her amended 6 complaint consisted of short, conclusory statements that lacked detail or 7 assertion of federal constitutional or statutory rights. There was insufficient 8 information to determine the causes of action, and Ms. Frances did not show how 9 she is entitled to the relief sought. The magistrate judge found that Ms. Frances 10 has already been given the opportunity to amend her complaint and still cannot 11 state a claim for which relief can be granted nor show that the deficiencies in her 12 complaint can be cured by further amendment. Therefore, amendment would be 13 futile. The Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s reasoning and adopts her 14 R&R in full. 15 III. Conclusion 16 It is therefore ordered that the R&R be ADOPTED in full. 17 It is further ordered that Ms. Frances’ motion for leave to file an amended 18 complaint (ECF No. 18) is DENIED. 19 It is further ordered that Ms. Frances’ miscellaneous motions (ECF Nos. 20 19, 23, 24, 25, 27) are DENIED as moot. 21 It is further ordered that Ms. Frances’ subsequent applications to proceed 22 in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 33, 34, 35) be DENIED as moot. 23 It is further kindly ordered that the Clerk CLOSE this case. 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Dated this 21st day of October, 2025. 2

4 ANNER.TRAUM 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28