Young v. United States of America/Republican Party et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
JUSTIN E. YOUNG, 	Case No. 1:25-cv-559
Plaintiff, 	Cole, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
vs.
REPUBLICAN PARTY, et al., 	REPORT AND
Defendants. 	RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to reopen (Doc. 19). Plaintiff Justin
Young initiated this action against the United States of America/Republican Party, Texas, the
Supreme Court of Ohio, the Justice Department, “Red” States, Donald Trump, Jr., the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, the Department of the Treasury, the Social Security Administration, and
many other defendants, alleging social security fraud, treason, and other claims. (Docs. 1-1, 1-4,
1-5, and 1-6). Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and the Court performed
a sua sponte review of plaintiff’s complaints, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The Court reviewed plaintiff’s second amended complaint, and, on August 27, 2025, the
undersigned issued a Report and Recommendation to dismiss for failure to state a claim on
which relief could be granted. (Doc. 6). Although the Report and Recommendation specifically
notified plaintiff that he could object to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen days
(Doc. 6 at PAGEID 491), plaintiff failed to file written objections. “The failure to file written
objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation waives a de novo determination by
the district court of any issues addressed in the report and recommendation.” Sowell v. United
States, No. 2:23-cv-1683, 2025 WL 588641 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 24, 2025) (citing Thomas v. Arn,
728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff’d, 474 U.S. 140 (1985)); see also Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d
520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019).
Case: 1:25-cv-00559-DRC-KLL Doc #: 21 Filed: 12/12/25 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
On September 25, 2025, the District Judge adopted the Report and Recommendation, and
the Clerk entered judgment accordingly. (See Docs. 17, 18). Plaintiff then filed the instant
motion (Doc. 19) and another amended complaint (Doc. 20).
Plaintiff’s filing is not labeled, but the Court will construe it liberally as a motion for
relief from judgment since judgment has been entered in this matter and plaintiff attempted to
file another complaint.1 (see generally Docs. 19, 20). “Following entry of final judgment, a
party may not seek to amend their complaint without first moving to alter, set aside or vacate
judgment pursuant to either Rule 59 or Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” In re
Ferro Corp. Derivative Litig., 511 F.3d 611, 624 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Morse v. McWhorter,
290 F.3d 795, 799 (6th Cir. 2002)). Rule 59 addresses post-trial motions and does not apply
here, since this matter was dismissed without trial. (See Doc. 17).
Rule 60(b) provides for relief from an order or judgment for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have
been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an
1 Plaintiff’s newest complaint alleges that “America is being attacked by our own President” and seeks a “real
serious probe into Trump’s DOGE and the Social Security Administration!” (Doc. 20 at PAGEID 701). Plaintiff
further notes that he attempted to contact Pam Bondi and Marco Rubio, who were unwilling to listen, and the
purported amended complaint concludes, “Elon buddy, Aram Moghaddassi said he would take full responsibility.”
(Id.).
Case: 1:25-cv-00559-DRC-KLL Doc #: 21 Filed: 12/12/25 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is
no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b) is not a substitute for an appeal. Hopper v. Euclid Manor
Nursing Home, Inc., 867 F.2d 291, 294 (6th Cir. 1989).
Plaintiff’s one-page motion (Doc. 19) states only that he was abused at a “mental
traphouse,” that he needs to testify in front of congressional leaders, that his case “is bigger than
[his] complaint with SSA,” and that he seeks to protect the American people. (Id. at PAGEID
689). There is no legal basis supporting any relief requested or the Court’s authority to grant it,
and this frivolous motion (Doc. 19) should be denied.
Given the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that any further filings in this closed
case be stricken. See Bell v. Mercy Hosp., No. 1:23-cv-212, 2023 WL 8788804, at *1 (S.D. Ohio
Dec. 19, 2023) (“[B]ecause Plaintiff’s post-judgment motion is patently frivolous, and there is no
non-frivolous basis for any further filings in this closed case, any further motions shall be
summarily denied on procedural grounds without the necessity of further analysis.”). See also
Overton v. United States, No. 1:11-cv-0158, 2012 WL 6061087, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 6, 2012)
(“[T]his case is closed, the Court therefore no longer has jurisdiction, and any post-judgment
motions can only serve to harass.”).
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 19) be DENIED.
2. 	Plaintiff’s amended complaint be STRICKEN as improvidently filed.
Case: 1:25-cv-00559-DRC-KLL Doc #: 21 Filed: 12/12/25 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
3. 	Any further filings by plaintiff in this case be automatically stricken unless
accompanied by an attorney’s certification that the filing is not frivolous.
Date: ________________ 	__________________________________
Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate Judge
12/12/2025
Case: 1:25-cv-00559-DRC-KLL Doc #: 21 Filed: 12/12/25 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
JUSTIN E. YOUNG, 	Case No. 1:25-cv-559
Plaintiff, 	Cole, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
vs.
REPUBLICAN PARTY, et al.,
Defendants.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of
the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on
timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected
to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report
and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral
hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such
portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the
assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections
WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in
accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Case: 1:25-cv-00559-DRC-KLL Doc #: 21 Filed: 12/12/25 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>