Archie v. State, Unpublished Decision (10-9-2007)
This text of 2007 Ohio 5408 (Archie v. State, Unpublished Decision (10-9-2007)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
{¶ 2} On July 30, 2007, the magistrate filed a magistrate's decision (attached as Appendix A) which includes a recommendation that we dismiss the case because relator *Page 2
has not complied with R.C.
{¶ 3} On August 6, 2007, relator filed objections to the magistrate's decision. The case is now before the court for review.
{¶ 4} In his objections to the magistrate's decision, relator does not contest the fact that he has not paid the filing fees for his case. He also does not assert that he has submitted an affidavit listing the other civil cases he has filed. No offer to pay filing fees later was made once he learned how much the filing fees were.
{¶ 5} Since relator clearly has not provided the filing fees and required information, the objections to the magistrate's decision are overruled. We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the magistrate's decision. We dismiss the case without prejudice.
Case dismissed.
*Page 3SADLER, P.J., and McGRATH, J, concur.
Findings of Fact:
{¶ 7} 1. Relator is an inmate incarcerated at the Southern Ohio Correctional Institution.{¶ 8} 2. In June 2007, relator filed a complaint in this court asserting that the trial court acted inappropriately and that he should be released from incarceration.
{¶ 9} 3. In July 2007, respondent, "State of Ohio Ronald J. O'Brien," filed a motion to dismiss on grounds that relator failed to comply with the requirements of R.C.
{¶ 10} 4. Relator has not filed a memorandum contra to respondent's motion.
{¶ 11} 5. The matter is currently before the magistrate.
Conclusions of Law:
{¶ 12} For the reasons that follow, this court should grant respondent's motion and dismiss relator's action. {¶ 13} First, relator has not paid filing fees, nor has he fulfilled the requirements in R.C.
{¶ 14} R.C.
{¶ 15} In regard to filing fees, R.C.
{¶ 16} Compliance with the provisions of R.C.
{¶ 17} In the present action, relator has not filed the required affidavit regarding his other civil actions, if any. In addition, relator has not filed an affidavit of indigency that includes the required information and, thus, he cannot qualify for payment of fees in installments from his prison account. Therefore, dismissal of the complaint is warranted.
{¶ 18} The magistrate, accordingly, recommends that the court grant the motion to dismiss this action.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2007 Ohio 5408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/archie-v-state-unpublished-decision-10-9-2007-ohioctapp-2007.