Case ID: ohio-st-3d_89/html/0208-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Norris, Appellant, v. Budgake, Dir., Appellee.
    [Cite as Norris v. Budgake (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 208.]
    (No. 00-323
    Submitted April 25, 2000
    Decided June 21, 2000.)
    
      
      Robert Lee Norris, pro se.
    
    
      Marietta Mestel, Canton Assistant Law Director, for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Budgake’s uncontroverted summary judgment evidence established that the records that Norris requested did not exist. Budgake had no duty to create new documents to satisfy Norris’s request. State ex rel. Taxpayers Coalition v. Lakewood (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 385, 389-390, 715 N.E.2d 179, 183; State ex rel. White v. Goldsberry (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 153, 154, 707 N.E.2d 496, 497. And Norris failed to respond by affidavit or as otherwise provided by Civ.R. 56 to set forth specific facts showing the existence of a genuine triable issue that would have precluded summary judgment. See Mootispaw v. Eckstein (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 383, 385, 667 N.E.2d 1197, 1199; Civ.R. 56(E). Therefore, Norris was not entitled to the writ.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.