Young v. The United States of America Corporate

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA Michael Patrick Young, Case No. 2:25-cv-00516-CDS-EJY 5 Plaintiff Order Overruling Plaintiff’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order v. The United States of America Corporate (d/b/a Department of Motor Vehicles), [ECF Nos. 4, 9] 9 Defendant 11 This is a purported § 1983 action brought by pro se plaintiff Michael Patrick Young.

12 Initiating docs., ECF No. 1. On March 31, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Elayna Youchah issued an order denying Young’s request to set up an eminent domain proceeding and directing Young to either pay the $405 filing fee or complete an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) no later than April 18, 2025. Order, ECF No. 4. As part of that order, the Clerk of Court sent Young a copy of the IFP application and the form complaint for this District. See id. at 4-1 and 4-2. On April 14, 2025, Young filed an objection to Judge Youchah’s order. Obj., ECF No. 9.

18 Young seemingly argues that the order lacks merit, citing to the Nevada Constitution to support that claim. See id. The April 18, 2025 deadline passed, and Young did not pay, and still has not paid, the $405 filing fee, nor has he completed an IFP application.

21 I. Legal Standard 22 A magistrate judge’s order should only be set aside if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); LR IB 3-1(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). A magistrate judge’s order is “clearly erroneous” if the court has “a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948); Burdick v. Comm’r IRS, 979 26 F.2d 1369, 1370 (9th Cir. 1992). “An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies l)/relevant statutes, case law[,] or rules of procedure.” UnitedHealth Grp, Inc. v. United Healthcare, Inc., 2|| 2014 WL 4635882, at *1 (D. Nev. Sept. 16, 2014).

3} II. Discussion 4 Young’s objection is at best vague and, at worst, conclusory. Either way, Young's objection is insufficient to demonstrate Judge Youchah’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to 6} the law. Further, Young does not cite any applicable legal authority or raise any argument to 7|| suggest any legal error in the order’s conclusion. Consequently, Young’s objection is overruled.

Judge Youchah’s order is affirmed in full. Young is hereby ordered to either pay the $405 filing 9}| fee or complete an IFP application by July 11, 2025, or this action will be dismissed without 10] prejudice, and without further notice.

HII. Conclusion 12 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's objection to Judge Youchah’s order [ECF No. 9] is OVERRULED and the order [ECF No. 4] is AFFIRMED in full.

14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Young must pay the $405 filing fee or complete an 15|| application to proceed in forma pauperis by July 11, 2025, or this action will be dismissed without 16|| prejudice, and without further notice. / ) 17 Dated: June 25, 2025 VY 19 ite aD. Silva ted States District Judge 20 LY