Michael Alexander Young v. Public Defender’s Office and Hacer Kandara

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MICHAEL ALEXANDER YOUNG CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 25-1753 PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE AND SECTION “R” (3) HACER KANDARA

ORDER AND REASONS Plaintiff Michael Alexander Young, a former Louisiana state inmate, filed this pro se and in forma pauperis federal civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 25, 2025.1 On October 22, 2025, Magistrate Judge Eva J. Dossier issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court dismiss plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice.2 Plaintiff did not object to the R&R. Therefore, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983) (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself R. Doc. 1. Plaintiff’s initial complaint was marked deficient. Plaintiff refiled his complaint on October 10, 2025, R. Doc. 8, after being granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, R. Doc. 7.

2 R. Doc. 9. that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). The Court finds no clear error.

Accordingly, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Dossier’s R&R as its opinion. Young’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this _10th_ day of November, 2025. bernk Viarvee SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE