# Orr

> District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 14, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11361475

## Case

- **Full name:** Christy Orr v. Joseph Orr, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** May 14, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11361475

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

CHRISTY ORR,

Plaintiff,

v. Case Number 2:26-cv-95
Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
JOSEPH ORR, et al.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Order and Report and
Recommendation recommending dismissal of Plaintiff Christy Orr’s Amended Complaint. (ECF
No. 5.) Plaintiff filed a timely Objection. (ECF No. 6.) For the reasons stated in this Opinion and
Order, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objection (ECF No. 6) and ADOPTS and
AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge’s Order and Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 5).
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against Defendants Joseph Orr; Lieutenant Brian Newsome, Morrow County Sheriff’s
Department; Stephanie Kreisher, guardian ad litem (“GAL”); Magistrate Celeste Brammer; and
Judge Robert Hickson for violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (ECF No.
4.)
As explained by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint arises from two
state-court matters: a 2021 criminal case and a subsequent divorce and custody dispute. (See id.)
Plaintiff alleges that her then-husband, Joseph Orr, falsely reported her to the Morrow County
Sheriff’s Department, leading to her arrest for domestic violence, which she claims was
wrongfully approved by Lieutenant Brian Newsome despite a conflict of interest, violating her
Fourth Amendment rights. (Id. PageID 61.) She also challenges the legality of the search and
detention procedures she experienced in jail. (Id.) The divorce case was filed by Mr. Orr in 2022
and involved a highly contested custody dispute. (See ECF No. 1-1, PageID 20.)1 The details of

the case are not clear, but the court ultimately awarded full custody to Mr. Orr with no parenting
time for Plaintiff until she completed counseling. (Id. PageID 23–24.)
Plaintiff is seeking monetary damages from the actors involved in the state-court matters.
(ECF No. 4, PageID 67.) She asserts First and Fourth Amendment claims against Mr. Orr arising
from her arrest and the custody dispute (id. PageID 61, 63); Fourth Amendment claims against
Lieutenant Newsome related to her arrest (id. PageID 61); and First Amendment retaliation and
Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claims against GAL Stephanie Kreisher for
depriving her of her parental rights (id. PageID 63, 65). She also brings procedural and
substantive due process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment against Magistrate Brammer
for entering inaccurate information in the divorce decree, improperly determining child support

obligations, and depriving her of her parental rights. (Id. PageID 63, 65.) She also sues Judge
Hickson and Magistrate Brammer for judicial bias and equal protection violations under the
Fourteenth Amendment. (Id. PageID 65.)
The Magistrate Judge conducted an initial screen of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and recommended dismissing the Amended Complaint in its

1 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 4) is the operative complaint. But for additional
context, the Court cites to the attached state-court documents in Plaintiff’s first Complaint (ECF
No. 1-1, PageID 20–21, 23–24) here, which were not attached to her Amended Complaint. See
Stewart v. Wayne Cnty. Prob. Ct., No. 23-12296, 2025 WL 699701, at *2 n.3 (E.D. Mich. Feb.
10, 2025), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:23-cv-12296, 2025 WL 698703 (E.D.
Mich. Mar. 4, 2025).
entirety. (ECF No. 5, PageID 69.) Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing
the claims against Judge Hickson, Magistrate Brammer, and GAL Kreisher because judges and
GALs are entitled to absolute immunity from suit regarding actions committed in their official
capacities. (Id. PageID 73.) As for the claims against Mr. Orr, the Magistrate Judge explained

that claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cannot be asserted against private individuals and,
moreover, individuals who report crimes or call the police cannot be held liable for constitutional
violations of the arrestee. (Id. PageID 73–74, 77.) The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal
of the false-arrest claim against Lieutenant Newsome because it is time-barred, as § 1983 claims
have a two-year statute of limitations in Ohio and Plaintiff’s arrest occurred in December 2021,
but she filed this lawsuit in January 2026. (Id. PageID 75.) For the same reason, the Magistrate
Judge recommended dismissal of the unreasonable-search and conditions-of-detention claims
related to Plaintiff’s arrest. (ECF No. 76.)
ANALYSIS
If a party timely objects 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); 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
First, Plaintiff objects to her claims being time-barred. (ECF No. 6, PageID 79.) She
argues that (1) the deprivation of her due process rights was ongoing and not time-barred and
(2) she was “prevented from timely asserting her claims due to notice, lack of service, and
procedural irregularities that deprived her of the ability to participate in underlying proceedings.”
(Id.) Plaintiff’s argument about the timeliness of her due process claims is unavailing because
those claims are barred by Defendants’ entitlement to absolute immunity. The Magistrate Judge
correctly concluded that Plaintiff’s procedural and substantive due process claims against Judge
Hickson, Magistrate Brammer, and GAL Kreisher should be dismissed because judges and
GALs are entitled to absolute immunity from suit regarding actions committed in their official

capacities. See Leech v. DeWeese, 689 F.3d 538, 542 (6th Cir. 2012) (“It is well-established
that judges enjoy judicial immunity from suits arising out of the performance of their judicial
functions.”) (quoting Brookings v. Clunk, 389 F.3d 614, 617 (6th Cir. 2004)); Holt v. Cuyahoga
County, No. 25-3671, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 4764, at *2 (6th Cir. Feb. 17, 2026) (explaining
that “immunity for judicial acts also extends to people who are important parts of the judicial
process,” including guardians ad litem); Kinter v. Boltz, No. 3:12-cv-85, 2012 WL 2871623, at
*6 (S.D. Ohio July 12, 2012) (Newman, M.J.).
As for Plaintiff’s claims under the Fourth Amendment, the Magistrate Judge correctly
explained that those claims are time-barred because they stem from Plaintiff’s arrest in
December 2021, of which Plaintiff had notice, and the two-year statute of limitations period has

run. See Campbell v. Smith, No. 21-4198, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 25002, at *3 (6th Cir. Sep. 6,
2022) (“Ohio law establishes a two-year statute of limitations in which to file a § 1983 claim.”)
(citing Browning v. Pendleton, 869 F.2d 989, 992 (6th Cir. 1989) (en banc)).
Next, Plaintiff objects to dismissal of her claims against “private actors,” arguing that
their actions were intertwined with state actors and taken under color of law for § 1983 purposes.
(ECF No. 6, PageID 79.) Mr. Orr, Plaintiff’s ex-husband, is the only Defendant who is a private
actor in this case. Plaintiff fails to allege how Mr. Orr’s actions were intertwined with state
actors. “Although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, courts are not required to
conjure up unplead allegations or guess at the nature of an argument.” Durrstein v. Arthur, 28 F.
App’x 466, 467 (6th Cir. 2002). Because Mr. Orr is a private actor and Plaintiff does not allege
any facts that Mr. Orr’s actions were intertwined with state actors’ actions, the § 1983 claims
against Mr. Orr must be dismissed.
Lastly, Plaintiff asks the Court to take notice of two cases pending in this District, which
she describes as “related,” to show that “the issues presented in this case are not isolated.”2 (ECF

No. 6, PageID 80.) Those cases involve some of the same defendants as this case but are
otherwise unrelated to this lawsuit. “Although the Court may take judicial notice of the fact that
other lawsuits were filed, . . . it may not take judicial notice of specific facts, allegations, or
conclusions within those other lawsuits.” Harper v. Univ. of Toledo, No. 3:22 CV 1308, 2024
WL 1347296, at *9 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 29, 2024); see also Kovacs v. Univ. of Toledo, No. 3:22-cv-
02151-JGC, 2023 WL 6518077, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 5, 2023) (citing Changizi v. Dep’t of
Health & Hum. Servs., 82 F.4th 492, 498 n.7 (6th Cir. 2023)). It would be inappropriate for the
Court to take judicial notice of alleged facts in unrelated cases to permit Plaintiff’s claims to
proceed in this case, as Plaintiff asks the Court to do here.

As a final note, in April 2026, Plaintiff filed a second Motion for Leave to Proceed in
forma pauperis. (ECF No. 7.) Because this Court already granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (ECF No. 5, PageID 69) and dismisses Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint herein,
Plaintiff’s Motion is moot.

2 The Objection is the first time Plaintiff asks the Court to take judicial notice of other cases. “As
a general rule, district courts do not have to consider arguments on review that were not raised
before the magistrate judge.” Nathan v. Ohio State Univ., No. 2:10-cv-872, 2013 WL 139874, at
*4 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 10, 2013) (Smith, J.). Because pro se litigants’ filings are subject to “less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” the Court proceeds to address her
request, nevertheless. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court OVERRULES (ECF No. 6) Plaintiff’s Objection
and ADOPTS and AFFIRMS (ECF No. 5) the Magistrate Judge’s Order and Report and
Recommendation. Further, (ECF No. 7) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma

pauperis is DENIED as moot. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. (ECF
No. 4.)
The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment, close this case on the Court’s docket, and
mail a copy of this Opinion and Order to Plaintiff Christy Orr at 74 E High Street, Mt. Gilead,
Ohio, 43338.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5/14/2026 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11361475. Public record. Not legal advice.