With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (6th Cir.2014). Plaintiffs complaint fails on multiple fronts to state a plausible Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim. First, plaintiff’s allegations relating to the second element, lack of probable cause, are vague and conclusory. For instance, plaintiff alleges that “[t]he statements made by Defendant Rego were false and Defendant Rego was aware that the statements were false when made.” He also alleges, “Defendant Putman inserted information in her report to the prosecutor that was false or exaggerated and misleading.” Yet, plaintiff does not specify what was false about Rego’s or Putman’s information or how that information influenced the magistrate judge’s decision to find probable cause and issue a complaint. See Meeks v. Larsen, 611 Fed.Appx. 277, 282-83 (6th Cir.2015) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks and bracketing

A: holding that once a plaintiff has pled facts in the complaint indicating that the statute of limitations is a complete or partial bar to an action it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to plead either in the complaint or in amendments to it facts establishing an exception to the affirmative defense
B: holding that to rebut presumption plaintiff need only allege specific facts not plead evidence
C: holding that a complaint that makes no effort to identify what the false and misleading information was fails to plead specific facts necessary to establish a cause of action
D: holding that the furnishing of misleading information cannot support a claim for negligent misrepresentation the information must be false
C.