Brown v. Ross Correctional Inst.

2009 Ohio 7183
CourtOhio Court of Claims
DecidedDecember 22, 2009
Docket2008-09635-AD
StatusPublished

This text of 2009 Ohio 7183 (Brown v. Ross Correctional Inst.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brown v. Ross Correctional Inst., 2009 Ohio 7183 (Ohio Super. Ct. 2009).

Opinion

[Cite as Brown v. Ross Correctional Inst., 2009-Ohio-7183.]

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

DUANE BROWN Case No. 2008-09635-AD

Plaintiff Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert

v. ENTRY OF DISMISSAL

ROSS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

Defendant

{¶ 1} Plaintiff, Duane Brown, filed a complaint against defendant, Ross Correctional Institution, which stated: “Male 14 K Gold Diamond Ring Belonging to Raymond Brown #198-854. The ring was given to Raymond by his brother, Duane Brown, which belonged to their deceased father. When I Duane Brown received his property the ring was not present.” Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $2,000.00. {¶ 2} Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Furthermore, defendant asserts the claim should be denied pursuant to Civ.R. 17, since plaintiff is not the real party in interest. {¶ 3} Defendant asserts plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed since he has failed to allege any negligent action or omission on the part of defendant caused the loss of the ring. In the alternative, defendant asserts, based on plaintiff’s pleadings, plaintiff was not the owner of the ring in question but his brother. Therefore, plaintiff is not the real party in interest. {¶ 4} Upon review of the pleadings, this court finds that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. He has not alleged what negligent act defendant engaged in or presented any evidence tying defendant to the loss of the ring in question. Since plaintiff’s claim is denied pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), the issues Case No.2008-09635-AD -2- ENTRY

raised by Civ.R. 17 need not be addressed. Therefore, defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED. The court shall absorb the court costs of this case.

________________________________ DANIEL R. BORCHERT Deputy Clerk

Entry cc:

Duane Brown Stephen A. Young 9112 Parmalee Department of Rehabilitation Cleveland, Ohio 44108 and Correction 770 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43222 DRB/laa Filed 12/22/09 Sent to S.C. reporter 4/7/10

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2009 Ohio 7183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-ross-correctional-inst-ohioctcl-2009.