Young v. Garland et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Cindy L. Young
v.
Wesley Garland et al.
Case No. 25-cv-472-LM-TSM
ORDER
No objection having been filed, I herewith approve the Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Talesha L. Saint-Marc dated April
16, 2026 . 	“[O]nly those issues fairly raised by the objections to
the magistrate's report are subject to review in the district court
and those not preserved by such objection are precluded on appeal.”
Rivera-Aponte v. Gomez Bus Line, Inc., 62 F.4th 1, 10 (1st Cir. 2023)
(quoting Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Nat’l Ins. Co., 617 F.3d 554, 564
(1st Cir. 2010)); see also Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d
163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016) (“[P]arties who fail to file objections to a
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation lose their right to
appellate review.”).
Plaintiff’s request for entry of default against Agent Garland
(Doc. No. 11) is denied. The motion to file a second amended complaint
(Doc. No. 18) is granted. 	While plaintiff prematurely filed her
second amended complaint (doc. 31), as document 30 approved another
report and recommendation denying the motion for preservation of
evidence, there has been no objection to the second amended
complaint.
Case 1:25-cv-00472-LM-TSM Document 33 Filed 05/18/26 Page 1 of 2

Therefore, document 31 is the operative complaint.
____________________________
Landya B. McCafferty
United States District Judge
Date: May 18, 2026
cc: Cindy L. Young, pro se
Counsel of Record
Case 1:25-cv-00472-LM-TSM Document 33 Filed 05/18/26 Page 2 of 2