Aaron Ingram v. Elizabeth A. Mercer, et al.

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * * 6 AARON INGRAM, Case No. 2:25-cv-01565-MMD-EJY

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 ELIZABETH A. MERCER, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Aaron Ingram filed a First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 6 12 (“FAC”).) Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States 13 Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah, recommending the FAC be dismissed without 14 prejudice and without leave to amend. (ECF No. 11 (“R&R”).) Plaintiff filed an objection 15 only as to the listed case number. (ECF No. 12 (“Objection”).) For that reason, and as 16 further explained below, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 17 Where there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review and need 18 only ensure that the magistrate judge did not clearly err. See United States v. Reyna- 19 Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ 20 findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections 21 to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original). Here, Plaintiff expressly 22 does not object to the substance or merits or Judge Youchah’s recommendation. (ECF 23 No. 12 at 1-2.) The Court is satisfied that Judge Youchah did not clearly err in concluding 24 that the Younger abstention doctrine bars Plaintiff’s claims here. (ECF No. 11 at 3-4 (citing 25 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43 (1971).) The Court therefore adopts Judge Youchah’s 26 recommendation to dismiss the FAC without prejudice and without leave to amend as 27 amendment would be futile but allowing Plaintiff to pursue a habeas petition if he is found 28 guilty in his state criminal proceedings. (Id. at 5.) 1 In his Objection, Plaintiff states that he “respects the Court’s R&R” and “only 2 || objects. . . due to the inaccurate and/or incorrect case n[umber].” (ECF No. 12 at 1, 2.) 3 || Plaintiff asserts that the “correct and accurate” case number is “2:25-cv-01565-CDS-EJY” 4 || and remarks that the case number in the R&R replaces “CSD” with “MMD..” (/d. at 1.) The 5 || Court acknowledges Plaintiff's confusion as he properly identifies that the case number 6 || has changed. But the Court clarifies that this change is not a negligent “mistake” that may 7 || be injurious to the Plaintiff. (/d. at 1.) This change instead reflects the replacement of the 8 || presiding judge in the case. Judge Cristina D. Silva (a.k.a. “CDS”) properly recused 9 || herself from presiding over this case on March 12, 2026. (ECF No. 9.) The case was then 10 || randomly reassigned to Judge Miranda M. Du (a.k.a “MMD?”) for all further proceedings. 11 || (ECF No. 10.) The case number reflects this change. (/d.) The Court therefore clarifies to 12 || Plaintiff that the proper case number is now 2:25-cv-01565-MMD-EJY. 13 It is therefore ordered that Judge Youchah’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 14 || No. 11) is accepted and adopted in full. 15 It is further ordered that Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6) is 16 || dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend. 17 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 18 || Nos. 1, 4) is denied as moot. 19 The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this 20 || case. 21 22 DATED THIS 9" Day of April 2026.

24 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 35 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26 27 28