State Ex Rel. Williams v. Williams, 07ap-124 (6-26-2007)
This text of 2007 Ohio 3230 (State Ex Rel. Williams v. Williams, 07ap-124 (6-26-2007)) 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} In accord with local rules, the case was referred to a magistrate to conduct appropriate proceedings. Counsel for the public defender named as respondent in this case filed a motion to dismiss the case pointing out that Mr. Williams has not complied *Page 2
with R.C.
{¶ 3} Mr. Williams did not file a memorandum contra the motion to dismiss, but instead filed a motion asking for an extension of time in which to remedy a second portion of R.C.
{¶ 4} The magistrate has filed a magistrate's decision which includes a recommendation that we dismiss the case. (Attached as Appendix A.) Mr. Williams has not filed objections to the magistrate's decision.
{¶ 5} Under Civ.R. 53, if a magistrate's decision is filed and no timely objections are filed, the court can adopt the magistrate's decision unless some error of law or other defect is apparent on the face of the magistrate's decision. No such error or defect is apparent here.
{¶ 6} We, therefore, adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the magistrate's decision. As a result, we overrule Mr. Williams' motion for an extension of time and sustain the motion to dismiss. This case is, therefore, dismissed.
Motion to dismiss sustained, case dismissed.
DESHLER, J., retired of the Tenth Appellate District, assigned to active duty under the authority of Section*Page 36 (C), ArticleIV , Ohio Constitution.
Findings of Fact:
{¶ 8} 1. Relator is an inmate currently incarcerated at the London Correctional Institution.{¶ 9} 2. In February 2007, relator filed a mandamus action requesting that this court order respondent to provide him with copies of all written and/or taped statements made by witnesses as well as copies of all evidence that was filed in his common pleas court action.
{¶ 10} 3. On March 12, 2007, respondent filed a motion to dismiss.
{¶ 11} 4. Relator has not filed a response to respondent's motion to dismiss. However, relator did file an untimely motion seeking a 30-day extension within which to file the required cashier's statement.
{¶ 12} 5. The matter is currently before the magistrate on motions.
Conclusions of Law:
{¶ 13} The magistrate recommends that the present action be dismissed. First, relator has not paid filing fees, nor has he fulfilled the requirements in R.C.
{¶ 14} R.C.
{¶ 15} In regard to filing fees, R.C.
{¶ 16} Compliance with the provisions of R.C.
{¶ 17} In the present action, relator has not filed the required affidavit regarding his other civil actions, if any. Further, in his motion requesting an extension of time to respond, relator only asserts that he will file the required cashier's statement. Relator has not filed nor requested additional time to file the required affidavit regarding his prior civil actions. In addition, relator has not filed an affidavit of indigency that includes the required information and, thus, he cannot qualify for payment of fees in installments from his prison account. Although relator has requested a 30-day extension of time to file same, the magistrate specifically denies that motion as it is both untimely and unreasonably long. Further, this documentation is required to be filed at the time the *Page 6 inmate commences the action. Although this court has granted extensions of time to file these documents in the past, such continuances are not required and a 30-day extension of time is unreasonable. Relator's motion for an extension of time to respond is denied.
{¶ 18} The magistrate, accordingly, recommends that respondent's motion to dismiss be granted and that the court dismiss this action.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2007 Ohio 3230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-williams-v-williams-07ap-124-6-26-2007-ohioctapp-2007.