[Cite as Tipton v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2012-Ohio-1254.]

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us

JASON E. TIPTON 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2011-07338 

Judge Joseph T. Clark 

Magistrate Matthew C. Rambo 

MAGISTRATE DECISION

{¶1} Plaintiff filed this action alleging defamation. The issues of liability and 

damages were bifurcated and the case proceeded to trial on the issue of liability. 

{¶2} As an initial matter, on October 24, 2011, defendant filed a motion to quash 

the subpoena issued to Rodney McIntosh and a motion to quash subpoenas issued to 

inmates Green, Bedinger, and Reineke. Upon review, the motion to quash the 

subpoena issued to McIntosh is GRANTED pursuant to Civ.R. 45 inasmuch as the 

subpoena seeks production of documents that should have been requested in 

discovery. The motion to quash the subpoenas issued to the three inmates is DENIED. 

{¶3} At all times relevant, plaintiff was an inmate in the custody and control of 

defendant at the Warren Correctional Institution (WCI) pursuant to R.C. 5120.16. 

Plaintiff testified that on the evening of May 8, 2011, he was working in the WCI dining 

hall as a “runner” between the service line and the kitchen. According to plaintiff, the 

service line was running low on the evening’s main entree, braised beef, and his task 

was to let the kitchen know that more was needed. Plaintiff testified that he made the 

kitchen aware of the issue three times but received no response. According to plaintiff, 
Case No. 2011-07338 - 2 - MAGISTRATE DECISION

the service line eventually ran out of braised beef, which caused an argument between 

himself and WCI Food Service Coordinator Miles “Moose” McDaniel. Plaintiff related 

that McDaniel accused him of not doing his job, to which plaintiff responded that he 

“knew how to do his job.” Plaintiff stated that McDaniel retorted “the only thing you 

know how to do is suck dicks.” Plaintiff alleges that McDaniel’s false and defamatory 

statement was overheard by other inmates and staff. According to plaintiff, McDaniel’s 

statement has caused other inmates to refer to him as “cum guzzler,” “swipe cleaner,” 

and “dick sucker”; and to proposition him for oral sex. 

{¶4} To prevail on a defamation claim, a plaintiff must prove the following 

elements: “(1) a false statement, (2) about the plaintiff, (3) published without privilege to 

a third party, (4) with fault of at least negligence on the part of the defendant, and (5) the 

statement was either defamatory per se or caused special harm to the plaintiff.” 

McPeek v. Leetonia Italian-Am. Club, 174 Ohio App.3d 380, 2007-Ohio-7218, ¶8. 

{¶5} McDaniel testified that he was familiar with plaintiff from working in the WCI 

kitchen and that he recalled plaintiff working on the service line on May 8, 2011. 

McDaniel stated that on the day in question, he spoke with plaintiff in the hallway 

between the serving line and the kitchen. However, McDaniel denied stating that 

plaintiff “sucks dicks” at that time, or at any other time. McDaniel further commented 

that he did not then, and does not now, bear any ill will toward plaintiff. 

{¶6} McDaniel also testified that there was no one else in the hallway at the time 

of the encounter. While plaintiff testified that other inmates and staff overheard the 

argument between himself and McDaniel, he did not identify any of those individuals or 

call any of them to testify at trial. 

{¶7} The court finds McDaniel to be more credible than plaintiff and finds that 

McDaniel never stated that plaintiff “sucks dicks.” Additionally, even if McDaniel had 

made the statement, plaintiff failed to establish that the statement was “published” to a 

third party. Accordingly, judgment is recommended in favor of defendant. 
Case No. 2011-07338 - 3 - MAGISTRATE DECISION

{¶8} A party may file written objections to the magistrate’s decision within 14 

days of the filing of the decision, whether or not the court has adopted the decision 

during that 14-day period as permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i). If any party timely files 

objections, any other party may also file objections not later than ten days after the first 

objections are filed. A party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of 

any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a 

finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party timely 

and specifically objects to that factual finding or legal conclusion within 14 days of the 

filing of the decision, as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b). 

 _____________________________________ 

 MATTHEW C. RAMBO 

 Magistrate 

cc: 

 

Amy S. Brown 

Ashley L. Oliker

Kristin S. Boggs 

Assistant Attorneys General 

150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor 

Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 

Jason E. Tipton, #A476-875 

P.O. Box 120 

Lebanon, Ohio 45036 

MCR/dms

Filed January 13, 2012 

To S.C. reporter March 23, 2012