State Ex Rel. Donan v. Collins, 06ap-1277 (6-28-2007)
This text of 2007 Ohio 3291 (State Ex Rel. Donan v. Collins, 06ap-1277 (6-28-2007)) 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.
Opinion
{¶ 2} This court referred this matter to a magistrate pursuant to Civ.R. 53(C) and Loc.R. 12(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals. The magistrate issued a decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, recommending that this court grant respondents' motion to dismiss. (Attached as Appendix A.) No objections to that decision have been filed.
{¶ 3} Finding no error of law or other defect on the face of the magistrate's decision, this court adopts the magistrate's decision as our own, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in it. In accordance with the magistrate's decision, respondents' motion to dismiss is granted, and this action is dismissed.
Motion to dismiss granted, action dismissed.
TYACK and DESHLER, JJ., concur.
DESHLER, J., retired of the Tenth Appellate District, assigned to active duty under authority of Section
Findings of Fact:
{¶ 5} 1. On December 22, 2006, relator, an SOCF inmate as of the date this action was filed, requested that a writ of mandamus issue against respondents ordering them to perform their alleged duties at SOCF.{¶ 6} 2. According to the complaint, the SOCF warden and other SOCF employees have a duty to visit relator's cell block once a week.
{¶ 7} 3. According to the complaint, "Recreation CO. Lewis owes Donan a duty to allow Donan to recreation and not to harass Donan merely because [he is] disliked by Lewis."
{¶ 8} 4. According to the complaint, respondent Collins has a duty to ensure that the institution is complying with all policies, but Collins is allegedly "failing in his job responsibilities."
{¶ 9} 5. According to the complaint, SOCF Warden Voorhies refuses to instruct his staff to enforce institutional policy regarding the making of rounds at the cell blocks.
{¶ 10} 6. Relator has not filed an affidavit stating that an institutional grievance was filed and the date on which the inmate received a decision regarding the grievance.
{¶ 11} 7. Relator has not filed an affidavit that contains a description of each civil action or appeal of a civil action that relator has filed in the previous five years.
{¶ 12} 8. Relator did file a document captioned "Poverty Affidavit and Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis." However, relator has not filed a statement of the amount *Page 5 in his inmate account for the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier.
{¶ 13} 9. On January 16, 2007, respondents filed a motion to dismiss this action.
{¶ 14} 10. Relator has not responded to the motion to dismiss.
Conclusions of Law:
{¶ 15} It is the magistrate's decision that this court grant respondents' motion to dismiss. {¶ 16} R.C.
{¶ 17} R.C.
{¶ 18} Under R.C.
{¶ 19} Relator has failed to comply with R.C.
{¶ 20} Accordingly, it is the magistrate's decision that this court grant respondents' motion to dismiss. *Page 1
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2007 Ohio 3291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-donan-v-collins-06ap-1277-6-28-2007-ohioctapp-2007.