Wallace v. Grafton Correctional Inst. ( 2011 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Wallace v. Grafton Correctional Inst., 
    2011-Ohio-1436
    .]
    Court of Claims of Ohio
    The Ohio Judicial Center
    65 South Front Street, Third Floor
    Columbus, OH 43215
    614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263
    www.cco.state.oh.us
    RONNIE LEE WALLACE
    Plaintiff
    v.
    GRAFTON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
    Defendant
    Case No. 2009-07024
    Judge Clark B. Weaver Sr.
    Magistrate Robert Van Schoyck
    JUDGMENT ENTRY
    {¶ 1} On January 5, 2011, the magistrate issued a decision recommending
    judgment for defendant.
    {¶ 2} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) states, in part: “A party may file written objections to a
    magistrate’s decision within fourteen days of the filing of the decision, whether or not the
    court has adopted the decision during that fourteen-day period as permitted by Civ.R.
    53(D)(4)(e)(i).” Plaintiff timely filed his objection.
    {¶ 3} Plaintiff’s objection challenges several factual findings made by the
    magistrate. Plaintiff, however, failed to support his objection with a transcript of
    proceedings. Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii) states that “[a]n objection to a factual finding,
    whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact under Civ. R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii),
    shall be supported by a transcript of all the evidence submitted to the magistrate
    relevant to that finding or an affidavit of that evidence if a transcript is not available.”
    Inasmuch as the factual findings contained in the magistrate’s decision support the
    magistrate’s conclusions, plaintiff’s objection is without merit.
    Case No. 2009-07024                          -2-                       JUDGMENT ENTRY
    {¶ 4} Similarly, to the extent that plaintiff’s objection seeks an order allowing him
    to recall a fact witness, and for leave to consult with an expert witness and then call that
    expert to testify in the case, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate to the court “that [he]
    could not, with reasonable diligence, have produced that evidence for consideration by
    the magistrate.” See Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d).
    {¶ 5} Upon review of the record, the magistrate’s decision and the objections,
    the court finds that the magistrate has properly determined the factual issues and
    appropriately applied the law. Therefore, the objection is OVERRULED and the court
    adopts the magistrate’s decision and recommendation as its own, including findings of
    fact and conclusions of law contained therein.          Judgment is rendered in favor of
    defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. The clerk shall serve upon all
    parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.
    _____________________________________
    CLARK B. WEAVER SR.
    Judge
    cc:
    Stephanie D. Pestello-Sharf                    Ronnie Lee Wallace, #A140-221
    Assistant Attorney General                     Grafton Correctional Institution
    150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor                2500 South Avon-Belden Road
    Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130                      Grafton, Ohio 44044
    LP/cmd
    Filed March 15, 2011
    To S.C. reporter March 22, 2011
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2009-07024

Judges: Weaver

Filed Date: 3/15/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014