govinfo:USCOURTS-ohsd-1_25-cv-00605-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 
WESTERN DIVISION 
 
KENYADA HINTON, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
OFFICER GROTE, et al., 
Defendants. 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
 

Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins 
 
 
 
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. 
Case: 1:25-cv-00605-JPH-KLL Doc #: 46 Filed: 06/04/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 
is no clear error on the fac e 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 
Jeffery P. Hopkins 
United States District Judge 
Case: 1:25-cv-00605-JPH-KLL Doc #: 46 Filed: 06/04/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight