[Cite as Skaggs v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2021-Ohio-3140.]

{¶1} On May 26, 2021, the magistrate issued a decision recommending judgment 

in favor of Defendant. On June 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed a document captioned “Motion to 

Deny This Magistrate Decision to Deny Plaintiff’s Complaint”. Therein, the basis of 

Plaintiff’s request is for the Court to review the magistrate’s May 26, 2021 decision and 

recommendation. Accordingly, the Court construes Plaintiff’s filing as objections to the 

magistrate’s decision under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).1 For the reasons set forth below, the 

Court adopts the magistrate’s decision as its own. 

Standard of Review 

{¶2} Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(b) provides that, “[w]hether or not objections are timely filed, 

a court may adopt or reject a magistrate’s decision in whole or in part, with or without 

modification.” However, when a party files objections to a magistrate’s decision, the 

court “shall undertake an independent review as to the objected matters to ascertain 

that the magistrate has properly determined the factual issues, and appropriately 

applied the law.” Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d). 

{¶3} In reviewing the objections, the court does not act as an appellate court but 

rather conducts “a de novo review of the facts and conclusions in the magistrate’s 

1 Pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i), Plaintiff’s filing is untimely. Nevertheless, in the interest of 

justice, the Court will consider Plaintiff’s objections. 

JASON SKAGGS 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF 

REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2019-00650JD 

Judge Patrick E. Sheeran 

JUDGMENT ENTRY 
Case No. 2019-00650JD -2- JUDGMENT ENTRY 

decision.” Ramsey v. Ramsey, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 13AP-840, 2014-Ohio-1921, ¶ 17 

(internal citations omitted). Objections “shall be specific and state with particularity all 

grounds for objection.” Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(ii). They must be supported “by a transcript 

of all the evidence submitted to the magistrate relevant to that finding or an affidavit of 

that evidence if the transcript is not available.” Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii). 

{¶4} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii) provides that “[t]he objecting party shall file the 

transcript or affidavit with the court within thirty days after filing objections.” Plaintiff did 

not provide a transcript of the evidence to support his objections or an affidavit of 

evidence. When an objecting party fails to properly support his objections with a 

transcript or affidavit, “the trial court must accept the magistrate’s factual findings and 

limit its review to the magistrate’s legal conclusions.” Triplett v. Warren Corr. Inst., 10th 

Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-728, 2013-Ohio-2743, ¶ 13. Accordingly, the Court accepts the 

magistrate’s factual findings as true, and restricts its consideration of Plaintiff’s 

objections to a review of the magistrate’s legal conclusions. 

Background 

{¶5} On May 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant seeking to 

recover damages for changes made to his prescription medications and injuries 

sustained during incidents where force was used on him while he was having seizures. 

The case proceeded to trial before a magistrate on the issues of liability and damages. 

At trial, the magistrate made the following factual findings: 

[P]rior to entering prison in 2008, he was placed on seizure 

medication in 2003 and has continued to take seizure medication since 

that time. Plaintiff stated that he suffers from grand mal seizures, complex 

partial seizures, and stare seizures. Plaintiff explained that when he has a 

seizure, he often loses control of his bodily movements and that he is 

unable to recall events that occurred while was suffering from his seizure. 
Case No. 2019-00650JD -3- JUDGMENT ENTRY 

Plaintiff stated that with the aid of his medications, Topamax and Keppra, 

his seizures have been controlled. 

Plaintiff explained that he was transferred to the London 

Correctional Institution in January 2016 and began to have problems with 

seizures shortly thereafter. Plaintiff stated that at some point defendant’s 

medical staff discontinued his seizure medi[c]ation. The decision to 

remove plaintiff from Topamax occurred on February 5, 2016, and the 

decision to remove plaintiff from Keppra occurred on February 9, 2016. 

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1. Plaintiff was gradually weened off both medi[c]ations 

over the next couple of months. Plaintiff testified that he began to 

experience frequent seizures that were witnessed by staff and other prison 

employees. Plaintiff believes that the medications should never have 

been discontinued and that by removing him from his medications, he 

began to have frequent seizures. Plaintiff stated that it appeared to him 

that defendant did not believe that his seizures were real. 

Plaintiff described several incidents where he received conduct

reports for his actions while he was having a seizure. Plaintiff emphasized 

that he has no ability to control his actions when he is having a seizure. 

Plaintiff testified that on April 27, 2016, he suffered a seizure, and he was 

unable to respond to corrections officer’s orders, unable to control himself, 

became aggressive, and grabbed the arm of the corrections officer. In a 

second incident on July 3, 2016, corrections officer Baker was escorting 

plaintiff when plaintiff became “dead weight” and was taken to the floor. In 

a third incident on July 28, 2016, corrections officers Sexton and Mets 

found plaintiff lying down and shaking. At some point plaintiff attempted to 

grab Sexton by the right arm. The corrections officers grabbed plaintiff by 

the shoulders, placed him on the wall, attempted to place handcuffs on 
Case No. 2019-00650JD -4- JUDGMENT ENTRY 

him, and ordered him to comply. When plaintiff failed to comply, 

corrections officers deployed pepper spray. Plaintiff continued to become 

more aggressive until officers gained control of him. At some point plaintiff 

was placed in the hole (restrictive housing) with handcuffs on that plaintiff 

says were too tight. Plaintiff testified that his wrists were damaged by the 

handcuffs. 

Plaintiff testified that in October 2016, his diagnosis was confirmed 

and defendant prescribed Depakote and Keppra. Plaintiff believes he 

should have been prescribed Topamax. Plaintiff acknowledged that he 

was never denied seizure medication and was continually provided 

medications; however, plaintiff believes he should have never had 

Topamax and Keppra removed from his prescription plan. Plaintiff also 

stated that Disability Rights Ohio became involved in his case and his 

conduct reports were amended to show that he was not breaking prison 

rules but that he was suffering from medical issues. Plaintiff added that he 

is currently on Keppra and Topamax. 

Landon Khols, the health care administrator at the Allen-Oakwood 

Correctional Institution, testified that plaintiff is on the healthcare load for 

defendant. Khols examined a list of prescription medi[c]ations that plaintiff 

has been prescribed since 2017 and noted that dating back to March 2017 

plaintiff has been consistently provided with various combinations of 

seizure medications, including Divalproex (Depakote), Levetiracetam 

(Keppra), and Carbamazepine. 

{¶6} As a result, the magistrate found that Plaintiff stated a medical malpractice 

claim which was barred by the statute of limitations. Furthermore, the magistrate found 

that, even if his medical malpractice claim was timely, Plaintiff cannot prevail because 

he failed to present any expert witness testimony to establish the standard of care, 
Case No. 2019-00650JD -5- JUDGMENT ENTRY 

breach of that standard of care, and proximate care of his injuries. In his objections, 

Plaintiff argues that the magistrate erred when he (1) construed his claim as one for 

medical malpractice instead of ordinary negligence, and (2) when he found that his 

claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff argues that Defendant has been 

engaging in ongoing negligence against him from January 2016 until 2020 by delaying 

and keeping him from being prescribed the correct seizure medication. 

Law and Analysis 

{¶7} A review of the magistrate’s legal conclusions reveals that he neither erred 

in construing Plaintiff’s claim as one for medical malpractice nor finding that Plaintiff’s 

claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Indeed, if ODRC’s alleged negligent acts 

or omissions arise in the course of medical diagnosis, care, or treatment of an inmate, 

then it is a claim for medical malpractice. Foy v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th 

Dist. Franklin No. 16AP-723, 2017-Ohio-1065, ¶ 23. The negligence Plaintiff alleges 

involves Defendant’s medical staff altering Plaintiff’s seizure medications, Topamax and 

Keppra, in February 2016. Indeed, such actions arise out of Defendant’s medical 

diagnosis, care, or treatment of Plaintiff. Thus, the Court finds no error with the 

magistrate construing Plaintiff’s allegations as a claim for medical malpractice. 

{¶8} Additionally, Plaintiff was aware Defendant’s medical staff altered his 

seizure medication in February 2016 and Plaintiff believes he should have always been 

prescribed Topamax and Keppra. Indeed, this is a cognizable event that should 

reasonably alert Plaintiff to pursue his remedies regarding an error in his medical care. 

See Hans v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 07AP-10, 2007-Ohio3294, ¶ 10, quoting Allenius v. Thomas, 42 Ohio St.3d 131, 134, 538 N.E.2d 93 (1989). 

Despite Plaintiff’s contention that Defendant’s negligence was ongoing until 2020, it is 

clear that Plaintiff believes Defendant began mishandling his medical treatment in 2016. 

Thus, the Court finds no error with the magistrate’s legal finding that Plaintiff’s medical 

malpractice claim is time-barred. See R.C. 2305.113(A). 
Case No. 2019-00650JD -6- JUDGMENT ENTRY 

{¶9} Assuming arguendo that the Court were to construe Plaintiff’s claim as 

ordinary negligence, his claim would likewise be barred by the two-year statute of 

limitations. See Vellky v. Kent State Univ., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 85AP-171, 1985 Ohio 

App. LEXIS 6767, 3 (Aug. 1, 1985), citing R.C. 2743.16. Generally, a cause of action 

for negligence accrues when the wrongful act was committed. O’Stricker v. Jim Walter 

Corp., 4 Ohio St.3d 84, 87, 447 N.E.2d 727 (1983). As stated above, Plaintiff claims 

Defendant’s discontinuation of Plaintiff’s seizure medication, which led to several useof-force incidents, occurred in 2016. Consequently, Plaintiff’s May 2019 complaint 

cannot survive the statute of limitations. Therefore, Plaintiff’s objections are 

OVERRULED. 

{¶10} For the reasons stated above, the Court finds the magistrate properly 

determined the factual issues and appropriately applied the law in this case. 

Accordingly, the Court adopts the magistrate’s decision and recommendation as its 

own, and judgment is rendered in favor of Defendant. Court costs are assessed against 

Plaintiff. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of 

entry upon the journal. 

 

 PATRICK E. SHEERAN 

Judge 

 

Filed August 18, 2021 

Sent to S.C. Reporter 9/13/21