Miller v. McCalla et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MEGHANN R. MILLER, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	CIVIL ACTION
)
v. 	) 	No. 25-2180-KHV
)
RANDY R. MCCALLA, in his individual and 	)
official capacity as guardian ad litem, 	)
JULIA C. BATTLE, in her individual capacity, 	)
J. STEPHEN HAZEL, PhD, in his individual 	)
capacity and JOHNSON COUNTY, KANSAS, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
____________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On November 24, 2025, Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James recommended that the Court
dismiss plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief could be
granted 	and 	because 	Randy 	McCalla 	has 	quasi-judicial 	immunity. 	See 	Report 	And
Recommendation For Dismissal Of Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. #26).
Plaintiff had until December 11, 2025 to file objections to the proposed findings and
recommendation. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (party must file objection within 14 days after
service of report and recommendation); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (deadline extended three days for
service by mail). No party has objected. For this reason and substantially the reasons stated in the
Report And Recommendation For Dismissal Of Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. #26), the Court adopts
the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in its entirety.1
1 	Judge James noted that Count XII of plaintiff’s First Amended Verified Complaint
(Doc. #13) is not a claim, but rather titled “Younger Abstention Does Not Apply and Judicial
Misconduct.” Report And Recommendation For Dismissal Of Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. #26) at
3 n.2. Judge James therefore did not analyze Count XII as a separate claim. See id. To the extent
(continued. . .)
Case 2:25-cv-02180-KHV-TJJ Document 28 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 2

-2-
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report And Recommendation For Dismissal
Of Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. #26) filed November 24, 2025 is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that under the abstention doctrine of Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 54 (1971), the Court dismisses plaintiff’s claims for equitable relief for
lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) and because
Randy R. McCalla is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity, the Court dismisses plaintiff’s
claims for monetary damages against him in Counts I, II, III, IV, VI, VII, X and XI.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the Court
dismisses Counts I, II, III, IV, VI, VII, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV against all defendants for
failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims in Counts V, VIII and IX and dismisses these claims
without prejudice.
Dated this 5th day of January, 2026 at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Kathryn H. Vratil
KATHRYN H. VRATIL
United States District Judge
1 (. . .continued)
that 	Count XII 	could 	be 	construed 	as 	a 	separate 	claim 	for 	relief, 	under 	28 	U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and for substantially the reasons stated elsewhere in the Report And
Recommendation For Dismissal Of Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. #26), the Court dismisses
Count XII for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
Case 2:25-cv-02180-KHV-TJJ Document 28 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 2