S.M.W. v. Cassidy

2025 Ohio 2369

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 27, 2025
• Docket: 114701
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as S.M.W. v. Cassidy, 2025-Ohio-2369.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

S.M.W., : Relator, : No. 114701 v. : JUDGE MARILYN B. CASSIDY, ET AL., :

Respondents. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: WRIT DISMISSED DATED: June 27, 2025

Writ of Procedendo Order No. 585532 Motion No. 584540

Appearances:

S.M.W., pro se.

Mark D. Griffin, Director of Law, and Gilbert E. Blomgren, and James R. Russell, Jr., Assistant Directors of Law, for respondents.

MARY J. BOYLE, J.:

On December 31, 2024, the relator commenced this procedendo

action against the respondents Judge Marilyn Cassidy and Judge Michelle Early to

compel the respondents to issue a ruling on a motion to expunge or seal the records in the underlying case, State of Ohio/City of Cleveland v. S.W., Cleveland M.C.

No. 2020-CRB-007078.1 After several continuances because of a cyberattack on the

Cleveland Municipal Court, the respondent judges on May 16, 2025, moved to

dismiss on the grounds of mootness because the motion to seal records had been

granted on January 13, 2025. Attached to the motion was a copy of the docket in the

underlying case showing the motion to seal the records was granted on that date.

The relator has not filed a response to the respondents’ dispositive motion.

This court is convinced that the procedendo action is moot. The

respondents have proceeded to grant the subject motion. Moreover, a party’s failure

to oppose a motion to dismiss generally constitutes a waiver of any opposition to the

movant’s arguments. Clay v. Galita, 2024-Ohio-833, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.).

Accordingly, this court grants the respondents’ motion to dismiss and

dismisses this procedendo action. Each party to pay its own costs. The court further

directs the clerk to seal the records of this case. This court orders the clerk of courts

to serve all parties notice of the judgment and its date of entry upon the journal as

required by Civ.R. 58(B).

1 “Expungement occurs when a conviction is completely erased from one’s record.

Sealing is when the records are filed in ‘separate, secured location’ and ‘cannot be seen by most people.’” State v. W.A.R., 2024-Ohio-256 (8th Dist.), ¶ 13, fn. 2. Writ dismissed.

_______________________________ MARY J. BOYLE, JUDGE

EMANUELLA D. GROVES, P.J., and ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., CONCUR