Morrison v. Mt. Vernon Law Director's Office

2022 Ohio 4331

• Court: Ohio Court of Claims
• Decided: November 2, 2022
• Docket: 2022-00482PQ
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Morrison v. Mt. Vernon Law Director's Office, 2022-Ohio-4331.]

IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

JOSHUA MORRISON Case No. 2022-00482PQ

Requester Judge Patrick E. Sheeran

v. JUDGMENT ENTRY

CITY OF MOUNT VERNON LAW DIRECTOR’S OFFICE

Respondent

{¶1} On October 18, 2022, a Special Master issued a Report and Recommendation in this public-records case. In the Report and Recommendation (R&R), the Special Master notes that, on September 11, 2021, Morrison “made a public records request to the Law Director of the City of Mount Vernon (‘the City’) seeking copies of ‘[a]ny and all requests for Public Records received by the City of Mount Vernon, Ohio between May 1, 2021 and June 30, 2021.’” (R&R, 1.) The Special Master states, “The record includes no evidence that the Law Director acknowledged receipt of these requests or produced any responsive records until August 9, 2022.” (R&R, 1.) The Special Master also states: Upon consideration of the pleadings and attachments the Special Master recommends the court find requester’s claim for production of records moot. The Special Master further recommends the court find that respondent failed to produce the requested public records within a reasonable period of time. It is recommended requester be entitled to recover from respondent the amount of the filing fee of twenty- five dollars and any other costs associated with the action that were incurred by requester, and that court costs be assessed to respondent. (R&R, 4-5.) Case No. 2022-00482PQ -2- JUDGMENT ENTRY

{¶2} Neither party has timely objected to the Report and Recommendation, as permitted by R.C. 2743.75(F)(2). Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), if neither party timely objects to a special master’s report and recommendation, then 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 Report and Recommendation. The Court therefore adopts the Report and Recommendation in accordance with R.C. 2743.75(F)(2). Because Respondent denied Requester access to public records in violation of R.C. 149.43(B), 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, excepting attorney fees. Court costs are assessed to Respondent. The Clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.

PATRICK E. SHEERAN Judge

Filed November 2, 2022 Sent to S.C. Reporter 12/5/22