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

Opinion

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

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

□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE