1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 U’Nika J. Queeney Yahral, Case No. 2:24-cv-02042-CDS-MDC

5 Plaintiff Order Adopting Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 6 v. and Closing Case

7 Frankie Cooper, et al., [ECF No. 19] 8 Defendants

9 10 Plaintiff U’Nika J. Queeny Yahral brings this action seeking redress for the removal of her 11 minor children from her custody. Compl., ECF No. 1-1. United States Magistrate Judge 12 Maximiliano D. Couvillier III screened Yahral’s complaint under

(e) and found that 13 Yahral asserts claims that have no private right of action, includes defendants who are immune 14 from suit, and fails to raise any

claim under Monell v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436

, 701 (1978). Order, ECF No. 17 at 6–17. As such, he dismissed the complaint with leave to 16 amend, giving Yahral until September 3, 2025, to amend her complaint.

. After the deadline 17 passed without Yahral filing an amendment, Judge Couvillier issued a report and recommendation 18 (R&R) that this case be dismissed. R&R, ECF No. 19. 19 Yahral had until November 4, 2025, to file any objections to the magistrate judge’s R&R. 20

at 3 (citing Local Rule IB 3-2 (stating that parties wishing to object to the findings and 21 recommendations must file specific written objections within fourteen days)); see also

636(b)(1)(C) (same). That deadline also passed, and no objection is filed. The law is clear that “no 23 review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are filed.” 24 Schmidt v. Johnstone,

(D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn,

, 25 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003). 26 27 1 Here, given Yahral’s failure to comply with the court’s order to file an amended complaint, 2 || Judge Couvillier considered the In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liability Litigation dismissal factors and 3 || found they weighed in favor of dismissal. ECF No. 19 at 2-3 (citing

, 1226 (9th Cir. 4 ||2006)). I agree that failure of a party to comply with a court order constitutes grounds for 5 dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b); see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 1260 6 |] (9th Cir. 1992) (“the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of 7 ||the court.”). I therefore accept the R&R in its entirety and dismiss this action. 8 Conclusion 9 It is hereby ordered that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [ECF No. 19] 10 |/is accepted and adopted in full, therefore Yahral’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The 11 of Court is kindly directed to enter judgment accordjzfily, and to close this case. 12 Dated: November 17, 2025 // Liege — 14 Cristina Dy. Silva U States District Judge 15 L / 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 XY