govinfo:USCOURTS-ohsd-1_25-cv-00605-2

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 issued by 
Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on November 18, 2025. Doc. 29. The Magistrate Judge 
recommends that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 18) filed by two of the d efendants, Judge 
Donte Johnson and Prosecut ing Attorney Melissa Kaniaris, be granted and that Plaintiff’s 
claims against them be dismissed. The Magistrate Judge further recommends that Plaintiff be 
granted 21 days from the entry of any Order adopting the Report and Recommendation to 
file an amended complaint, and that failure to do so, would result in dismissal of the claims 
against Johnson and Kaniaris with prejudice. Plaintiff has filed objections. Doc. 31. 
I. STANDARDS OF REVIEW 
If a party objects within the allotted time to a report and recommendation, the Court 
“shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed 
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Upon review, the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. § 636(b)(1). 
Case: 1:25-cv-00605-JPH-KLL Doc #: 47 Filed: 06/04/26 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS 
Plaintiff requests that the Court reject the Report and Recommendation and deny the 
Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Johnson and Kaniaris, or in the alternative, dismiss 
Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice and permit her leave to amend. Doc. 31, PageID 236–37. 
Plaintiff asserts four objections to the Report and Recommendation: 
1. The Report and Recommendation misapplies absolute prosecutorial 
immunity to Defendant Kaniaris at the pleading stage. 
2. The Report and Recommendation applies judicial immunity too broadly to 
Defendant Johnson and ignores the pro se pleading posture. 
3. The Report and Recommendation erroneously treats Plaintiff’s official 
capacity claims and state law claims as fatally defective and forecloses her 
ability to plead a Monell theory. 
4. The Report and Recommendation understates the gravity and plausibility 
of Plaintiff’s allegations and overlooks the Supreme Court’s recognition of 
fabricated-evidence due process claims. 
 
Id. at PageID 225–36. The Court will address each of these objections in turn. 
 The Court will first address Plaintiff’s objection related to Defendant Kaniaris. 
Plaintiff asserts that the Magistrate Judge relied on a narrow reading of her Complaint and 
failed to consider all of her allegations. This, however, is not persuasive. The allegations in 
her Complaint that she alleges the Magistrate Judge ignored are not in any way tied to 
Defendant Kaniaris. The Magistrate Judge was correct: “ The only conduct by defendant 
Kaniaris that plaintiff alleges in her Complaint is the introduction of a false toxicology report 
during plaintiff’s state court criminal proceedings.” Doc. 29, PageID 203 (citing Doc. 3, ¶¶ 9, 
21). Thus, prosecutorial immunity extends to the claims Plaintiff asserts against Defendant 
Kaniaris given that this allegation suggests that Defendant Kaniaris was “performing [a] 
function[] that [was] ‘intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process .’” 
Red Zone 12 LLC v. City of Columbus , 758 F. App’x 508, 513 (6th Cir. 2019). Though Plaintiff 
argues that immunity does not bar declaratory or injunctive relief, Plaintiff does not specify 
Case: 1:25-cv-00605-JPH-KLL Doc #: 47 Filed: 06/04/26 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3 
what declaratory or injunctive relief she’s pursuing, nor is it clear from the face of her 
Complaint whether she even seeks such relief. Plaintiff’s first objection is thus overruled. 
 Turn then to Plaintiff’s second objection related to Defendant Johnson. Plaintiff argues 
that the Magistrate Judge treated the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint as alleging only that 
Defendant Johnson presided over her case without considering the broader context. Doc. 31, 
PageID 230. She asserts that Defendant Johnson is not entitled to immunity “[t]o the extent 
[he] personally ratified the use of fabricated evidence, approved or participated in extra -
judicial communications to protect the officers fro m consequences, or took administrative 
acts outside the normal judicial role.” Id. at PageID 231. But even drawing all reasonable 
inferences in her favor, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain allegations that would suggest 
any non-judicial act on the part of Defendant Johnson—let alone any of the actions Plaintiff 
suggests in her objections. Plaintiff’s second objection is therefore overruled. 
 Plaintiff’s third objection addresses her Monell and state law claims. With respect to 
these claims, Plaintiff asserts that she should be permitted leave to amend and that dismissal 
of these claims with prejudice would be in error. Here, the Magistrate Judge has not 
recommended dismissal with prejudice. Instead, she expressly recommends that Plaintiff be 
granted leave to amend her complaint with 21 days of any Order adopting the Report and 
Recommendation. As a result, Plaintiff’s third objection is overruled. 
 That brings the Court to Plaintiff’s fourth and final objection regarding her allegations 
and her fabricated -evidence due process claims. In this objection, Plaintiff appears to be 
asserting a blanket objection to the Report and Recommendation and the classification of her 
claims as “conclusory and implausible.” Doc. 31, PageID 234. Beyond this, Plaintiff generally 
contests dismissal of her “fabricated-evidence due process claim.” Id. at PageID 235. Having 
Case: 1:25-cv-00605-JPH-KLL Doc #: 47 Filed: 06/04/26 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
4 
reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint and the Report and Recommendation, the Court does not find 
that the Magistrate Judge mischaracterized Plaintiff’s allegations or claims. Further, as stated 
previously, the Magistrate Judge has expressly recommended that Plaintiff be granted leave 
to amend her Complaint. The Court is inclined to accept that recommendation. As such, 
Plaintiff will have an opportunity to remedy any deficiencies identified by the Magistrate 
Judge. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s fourth and final objection is overruled. 
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 31) are OVERRULED, the 
Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety (Doc. 29), the Motion to Dismiss 
(Doc. 18) by Defendants Johnson and Kaniaris is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims against 
them are DISMISSED. Plaintiff shall have 21 days from the entry of this Order to file an 
amended complaint. If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within such time, the 
dismissal of the claims asserted against Defendants Johnson and Kaniaris will be WITH 
PREJUDICE. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
June 4, 2026 
Jeffery P. Hopkins 
United States District Judge 
Case: 1:25-cv-00605-JPH-KLL Doc #: 47 Filed: 06/04/26 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight