Klosterman v. Konza, LLC. et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

1
Case: 1:25-cv-00312-SJD-KLL Doc #: 103 Filed: 01/13/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: < pageID>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
John Klosterman,
Case No. 1:25-cv-312
Plaintiff,
Judge Susan J. Dlott
v.
Konza, LLC, et al.,
Order Adopting December 17, 2025 Report and Recommendation
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on December 17, 2025 recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff John Klosterman's Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Defendants Angel Strunk and Joseph Lentine, or Alternatively, to Find Service Complete Based on Actual Knowledge. (Docs, 76, 94.) The Magistrate Judge found that extending the time for service would be futile because Klosterman's claims against Defendants Angel Strunk and Joseph Lentine would be subject to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. 94 at PageID 1836-1837.) Klosterman filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation, arguing only that his malicious prosecution claim against Strunk and Lentine should be allowed to proceed. (Doc. 95 at PageID 1839, 1845.)
Reviewing the Report and Recommendation de novo under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Klosterman has failed to plead a viable malicious prosecution claim against Strunk or Lentine. A malicious prosecution claim, whether under federal or Ohio law, requires a favorable termination of the underlying criminal case against the plaintiff. See Susselman v. Washtenaw Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 109 F.4th
1
AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPC

3
Case: 1:25-cv-00312-SJD-KLL Doc #: 103 Filed: 01/13/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: < pageID>
864, 870 (6th Cir. 2024) (malicious prosecution under the Fourth Amendment), cert. denied sub nom. Susselman v. Washtenaw Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 145 S. Ct. 1901, 225 L. Ed. 2d 647 (2025); Criss v. Springfield Twp., 56 Ohio St. 3d 82, 84, 564 N.E.2d 440, 443 (1990) (malicious prosecution under Ohio law). Klosterman admits in the Amended Complaint that the criminal proceedings against him resulted in his imprisonment, not in his favor. (Doc. 33 at PageID 371.)1 It would be futile to allow Klosterman to obtain late service upon Strunk and Lentine to pursue a fatally-flawed claim for relief.
For these reasons, the December 17, 2025 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 94) is ADOPTED, Klosterman's Objection (Doc. 95) is OVERRULED, and the Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Defendants Angel Strunk and Joseph Lentine, or Alternatively, to Find Service Complete Based on Actual Knowledge (Doc. 76) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT: билen I. Whot
Susan J. Dlott United States District Judge
! He also asserts in the Objection that he was "convicted" and imprisoned. (Doc. 95 at PageID 1841.)
2