Kenyada Hinton v. Officer Grote, et al.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

KENYADA HINTON, : : Plaintiff, : Case No. 1:25-cv-605 : vs. : Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins : OFFICER GROTE, et al., : : Defendants. :

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 41) issued by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on April 29, 2026. The Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant Clyde Bennett II’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 8) be granted. No timely objections have been filed and the time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has expired.1 Having carefully reviewed the comprehensive findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge and finding no clear error, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (advisory committee notes from 1983 amendment) (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there

1 On June 2, 2026, Plaintiff filed untimely objections to the Report and Recommendation and requested leave to file objections out of time. Docs. 42, 43. She also requested that the Court treat her objections as a response to the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief that she seeks. As an initial matter, Defendant Bennett filed his motion to dismiss on September 13, 2025—almost 9 months ago. On March 4, 2026, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause as to why her case should not be dismissed as to Defendant Bennett because she had failed to respond to his motion. Doc. 33. In response to the show cause order, Plaintiff requested a 21 day extension of time. Doc. 34. The Court granted her 21 days, until April 20, 2026, to file a response, but despite the extension, she never responded to the motion to dismiss. Doc. 38. For these reasons, the Court declines to construe Plaintiff’s objections as a response to the motion to dismiss. The Court also finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to an extension of time to file objections on the basis of excusable neglect, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B), thus Plaintiff’s request for an extension (Docs. 42, 43) is DENIED. is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation”); see e.g., Roane v. Warden of Corr. Reception Ctr., No. 2:22-cv-2768, 2022 WL 16535903, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 28, 2022). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant Bennett’s motion to dismiss and DISMISSES the claims asserted against him WITH PREJUDICE. However, to the extent that Plaintiff alleges state-law claims for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over these claims and dismisses them without prejudice. Kowall v. Benson, 18 F.4th 542, 549 (6th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 88 (2022). IT IS SO ORDERED. June 4, 2026 aie Liab a €ffety dP. Hopkins United States District Judge