State ex rel. Brock v. McCafferty

2011 Ohio 6484
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 13, 2011
Docket97316
StatusPublished

This text of 2011 Ohio 6484 (State ex rel. Brock v. McCafferty) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Brock v. McCafferty, 2011 Ohio 6484 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Brock v. McCafferty, 2011-Ohio-6484.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97316

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., CLAUDE BROCK RELATOR

vs.

JUDGE BRIDGET MCCAFFERTY RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED

Writ of Prohibition Motion Nos. 448286 Order No. 450135

RELEASED DATE: December 13, 2011 FOR RELATOR

Claude Brock, pr se Inmate #A-560-610 North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility 1800 S. Avon Belden Road Grafton, OH 44044

ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT

William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor

By: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor Justice Center, 9th Fl. 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113

MELODY J. STEWART, P.J.:

{¶ 1} On September 15, 2011, the relator, Claude Brock, commenced this

mandamus action against the respondent, Judge Bridget McCafferty, to compel her to rule

on his motions for jail time credit, filed on December 7, 2010, and June 8, 2011, in the

underlying case, State v. Brock, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No.

CR-513753. Brock sought seven days of credit according to his complaint. On October

5, 2011, the respondent’s successor judge, moved for summary judgment on the grounds of mootness.1 Attached to the dispositive motion was a certified copy of a September 14,

2011 journal entry granting 14 days of jail time credit in the underlying case. Brock

never opposed the respondent’s motion. This establishes that the relator has received his

requested relief, a resolution of his subject motions, and that the action is, therefore,

moot. State ex rel. Corder v. Wilson (1991), 68 Ohio App.3d 567, 589 N.E.2d 113.

{¶ 2} Accordingly, the court grants the respondent’s motion for summary

judgment and denies the application for a writ of mandamus. Respondent to pay

{¶ 3} costs. The clerk is directed to serve upon the parties notice of this

judgment and

{¶ 4} its date of entry upon the journal. Civ. R.58(B).

Writ denied.

MELODY J. STEWART, PRESIDING JUDGE

JAMES J. SWEENEY, J., and COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., CONCUR.

The motion for summary judgment recognized that Judge Michael Astrab is the successor to 1

Judge McCafferty.

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

Related

State, Ex Rel. Corder v. Wilson
589 N.E.2d 113 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2011 Ohio 6484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-brock-v-mccafferty-ohioctapp-2011.