Burt v. Stockport

2015 Ohio 3461

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 25, 2015
• Docket: 15 AP 00001
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Burt v. Stockport, 2015-Ohio-3461.]

COURT OF APPEALS MORGAN COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DWIGHT L. BURT : JUDGES: : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellant : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. -vs- : : VILLAGE OF STOCKPORT, ET AL. : Case No. 15 AP 0001 : Defendants-Appellees : OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 10CV0072

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT: August 25, 2015

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendants-Appellees

WILLIAM L. BURTON MICHAEL J. VALENTINE 119 Maple Street MELVIN J. DAVIS Marietta, OH 45750 65 East State Street 4th Floor Morgan County, Case No. 15 AP 0001 2

Columbus, OH 43215 Farmer, J.

{¶1} On April 13, 2010, appellant, Dwight Burt, filed a complaint against

appellees, Village of Stockport and various officials, claiming twenty-six instances of

conduct amounting to corrupt activity and violations of his constitutional rights regarding

water and sewer issues.

{¶2} On December 20, 2012, appellees filed a motion for summary judgment.

By journal entry filed December 11, 2014, the trial court granted the motion and

dismissed the complaint.

{¶3} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for

consideration. Assignment of error is as follows:

I

{¶4} "THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BY FAILING

TO MAKE FINDINGS SUPPORTING ITS DECISION."

{¶5} Appellant claims the trial court erred in not entering findings in granting

appellees' motion for summary judgment. We disagree.

{¶6} Pursuant to Civ.R. 52, "[f]indings of fact and conclusions of law required

by this rule and by Rule 41(B)(2) are unnecessary upon all other motions including

those pursuant to Rule 12, Rule 55 and Rule 56." See also Koch v. Etna Township, 5th

Dist. Licking Nos. CA-3643 and CA-3644, 1991 WL 148092 (July 18, 1991) ("Civ.R. 52

and Civ.R. 56 are incompatible rules and to apply one necessarily excludes the other").

{¶7} During oral argument, appellant's counsel conceded that Civ.R. 52 does

not apply to rulings for summary judgment under Civ.R. 56. Morgan County, Case No. 15 AP 0001 3

{¶8} The sole assignment of error is denied.

{¶9} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Morgan County, Ohio is

hereby affirmed.

By Farmer, J.

Gwin, P.J. and

Delaney, J. concur.

SGF/sg 807