State ex rel. Dugger v. Strickland Saffold

2012 Ohio 2320

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 23, 2012
• Docket: 98134
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Dugger v. Strickland Saffold, 2012-Ohio-2320.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 98134

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., ALEXANDER DUGGER RELATOR

vs.

JUDGE SHIRLEY STRICKLAND SAFFOLD, ET AL. RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED

Writ of Mandamus Motion No. 454169 Order No. 454920

RELEASE DATE: May 23, 2012 FOR RELATOR

Alexander Dugger, pro se Inmate No. 550-955 Lake Erie Correctional Institution P.O. Box 8000 501 Thompson Rd. Conneaut, Ohio 44030

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS

William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor

By: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.:

{¶1} On March 22, 2012, the relator, Alexander Dugger, commenced this

mandamus action against the respondents, Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold and Judge

Nancy R. McDonnell, to compel them to rule on motions to dismiss and motions to

adjudicate that Dugger claims he filed on June 2, 2011, and October 14, 2011,

respectively, in the underlying cases, State v. Dugger, Cuyahoga C.P. Nos. CR-506065

and CR-506975. On April 13, 2012, the respondents filed a motion for summary

judgment on the grounds of mootness. Attached to this motion were certified copies of

two April 4, 2012 journal entries denying the October 14, 2011 motions to adjudicate in

both cases and certified copies of two April 12, 2012 journal entries denying the June 2,

2011 motions to dismiss in both cases. Dugger never filed a response. The attached

journal entries establish that Dugger has received his requested relief, rulings on the

subject motions and that the judges have fulfilled their duty to rule on those motions.

Therefore, this matter is moot.

{¶2} Accordingly, this court grants the respondents’ motion for summary

judgment. Each side to bear its own costs. This court directs the Clerk of the Eighth

District Court of Appeals to serve upon the parties notice of this judgment and its date of

entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B).

{¶3} Writ denied. EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, P.J., and MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR