Hodge v. Montgomery Cty. Prosecutor's Office

2020 Ohio 4904
CourtOhio Court of Claims
DecidedAugust 11, 2020
Docket2019-01111PQ
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2020 Ohio 4904 (Hodge v. Montgomery Cty. Prosecutor's Office) 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
Hodge v. Montgomery Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 2020 Ohio 4904 (Ohio Super. Ct. 2020).

Opinion

[Cite as Hodge v. Montgomery Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 2020-Ohio-4904.]

AIESHA M. HODGE Case No. 2019-01111PQ

Requester Judge Patrick M. McGrath

v. JUDGMENT ENTRY

MONTGOMERY COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE

Respondent

{¶1} On April 1, 2020, a special master issued a report and recommendation (R&R) regarding a public-records dispute in this case. The special master recommends (1) the issuance of an order compelling respondent to provide requester with copies of its responsive records that have been placed on the public court record in State v. Williams, Montgomery C.P. No. 2017 CR 02793, (2) denial of requester’s claim for production of any other requested records, (3) issuance of an order stating that requester is entitled to recover from respondent the amount of the filing fee of twenty- five dollars and any other costs associated with the action that she has incurred, and (4) assessing court costs to respondent. {¶2} Neither party has filed timely written objections to the R&R, as permitted by R.C. 2743.75(F)(2) and tolled by 2020 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 197. Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), if neither party timely objects, this court is required to “promptly issue a final order adopting the report and recommendation, unless it determines that there is an error of law or other defect evident on the face of the report and recommendation.” {¶3} Upon review, the court determines that there is no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the R&R of April 1, 2020. The court adopts the special master’s R&R, including the special master’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations contained in the R&R. Judgment is rendered in favor of requester. The court ORDERS respondent to provide requester with copies of its responsive Case No. 2019-01111PQ -2- ENTRY

records that have been placed on the public court record in State v. Williams, Montgomery C.P. No. 2017 CR 02793. Requester is entitled to recover from respondent the amount of the filing fee of twenty-five dollars and any other costs associated with the action that are incurred by requester, but requester is not entitled to recover attorney fees. Court costs are assessed against respondent. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.

PATRICK M. MCGRATH Judge

Filed August 11, 2020 Sent to S.C. Reporter 10/12/20

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

Related

Staton v. Timberlake
2023 Ohio 1860 (Ohio Court of Claims, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2020 Ohio 4904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hodge-v-montgomery-cty-prosecutors-office-ohioctcl-2020.