In re Layton

2023 Ohio 3344

• Court: Ohio Court of Claims
• Decided: August 16, 2023
• Docket: 2023-00003VI
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as In re Layton, 2023-Ohio-3344.]

IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

IN RE: DEVAUN LAYTON Case No. 2023-00003VI

DEVAUN LAYTON Magistrate Holly True Shaver

Applicant MAGISTRATE DECISION

{¶1} On January 3, 2023, Devaun Layton (“applicant”) filed a notice of appeal of the final decision of the Attorney General which had denied his claim for failure to fully cooperate with law enforcement pursuant to R.C. 2743.60(C) with regard to an incident which occurred on May 25, 2019. On August 10, 2023, a hearing was held before this magistrate in the above captioned case. During the hearing, applicant and his mother Martha Layton testified regarding the May 25, 2019 event and aftermath, including additional criminal incidents that occurred as a result of the original May 25, 2019 incident. After this testimony, the Assistant Attorney General recognized that the initial investigation was incomplete and requested that the case be remanded in order to complete a full investigation to include the newly disclosed facts. Based on the testimony presented at the hearing and the request of the Attorney General, the magistrate recommends that this claim be REMANDED to the Attorney General for further investigation. {¶2} A party may file written objections to the magistrate’s decision within 14 days of the filing of the decision, whether or not the court has adopted the decision during that 14-day period as permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i). If any party timely files objections, any other party may also file objections not later than ten days after the first objections are filed. A party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party timely and Case No. 2023-00003VI -2- DECISION

specifically objects to that factual finding or legal conclusion within 14 days of the filing of the decision, as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).

HOLLY TRUE SHAVER Magistrate

A copy of the foregoing was personally served upon the Attorney General and sent by regular mail to: Filed 08/10/2023 Sent to S.C. Reporter 9/20/23 Case No. 2023-00003VI -3- DECISION

DEVAUN LAYTON Judge Lisa L. Sadler

Applicant ORDER

{¶3} On August 10, 2023, a hearing was held in this matter before a Magistrate of this court. On August 15, 2023, the Magistrate issued a Decision wherein she found that based on the testimony of Applicant and his mother, the Attorney General recognized that the initial investigation was incomplete and requested that the case be remanded for further investigation. {¶4} 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).” Applicant stated at the hearing that he did not object to remanding the case for further investigation. {¶5} Upon review of the claim file, and the Magistrate’s Decision, it is the Court’s finding that the Magistrate was correct in her analysis of the issues and application of the law. Accordingly, this court adopts the Magistrate’s Decision and recommendation as its own. {¶6} IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT {¶7} The August 15, 2023 Decision of the Magistrate is ADOPTED; {¶8} This claim is REMANDED to the Attorney General for further investigation; {¶9} Costs assumed by the reparations fund.

LISA L. SADLER Judge Case No. 2023-00003VI -4- DECISION

A copy of the foregoing was personally served upon the Attorney General and sent by regular mail to Trumbull County Prosecuting Attorney and to: Filed 08/16/2023 Sent to S.C. Reporter 9/20/223