[Cite as Gill v. Grafton Correctional Inst., 2010-Ohio-4301.]

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

ALI GILL 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

GRAFTON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2005-09847 

Judge Joseph T. Clark 

Magistrate Steven A. Larson 

JUDGMENT ENTRY

{¶ 1} On June 12, 2009, the magistrate issued a decision recommending 

judgment in favor of defendant. On August 5, 2009, the court granted plaintiff an 

extension of time to file objections to the magistrate’s decision and to prepare an 

affidavit of evidence pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii). On August 27, 2009, plaintiff 

filed objections and an App.R. 9(C) statement in support of the objections. On 

September 28, 2009, the court overruled plaintiff’s objections and rendered judgment in 

favor of defendant. On June 29, 2010, the Tenth District Court of Appeals reversed the 

judgment of this court and remanded the case for further proceedings, stating in 

relevant part: 

{¶ 2} “[W]e conclude that the trial court erred by concluding that the transcript of 

the liability trial before the magistrate was available, thus precluding [plaintiff] from 

utilizing an alternative method of putting the evidence before the court for purposes of 

ruling on [plaintiff’s] objections to the magistrate’s factual findings. Because this was 

the only basis given by the trial court for its rejection of [plaintiff’s] statement of 
Case No. 2005-09847 - 2 - JUDGMENT ENTRY

proceedings and its adoption of the magistrate’s decision, we reverse the trial court’s 

judgment. Nevertheless, we recognize that there remains a question as to whether 

[plaintiff’s] statement of proceedings is an appropriate means of supporting his objection 

to the magistrate’s decision, even where a transcript is unavailable.” Gill v. Grafton 

Correctional Inst., Franklin App. No. 09AP-1019, 2010-Ohio-2977, ¶16. 

{¶ 3} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii) provides, in part: 

{¶ 4} “An objection to a factual finding, whether or not specifically designated as 

a finding of fact under Civ. R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), shall be supported by a transcript of all the 

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

evidence if a transcript is not available.” (Emphasis added.) 

{¶ 5} As defined by R.C. 2319.02, an affidavit is “a written declaration under 

oath, made without notice to the adverse party.” 

{¶ 6} Upon review, the court finds that the App.R. 9(C) statement plaintiff filed 

on August 27, 2009, in support of his objections to the magistrate’s decision is not an 

“affidavit” and therefore does not comply with the requirements of Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii). 

Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to properly support his factual 

objections to the magistrate’s June 12, 2009 decision. 

{¶ 7} Upon review of the record, the magistrate’s decision and the objections, 

the court finds that the magistrate has properly determined the factual issues and 

appropriately applied the law. Therefore, the objections are OVERRULED and the court 

adopts the magistrate’s decision and recommendation as its own, including findings of 

fact and conclusions of law contained therein. 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. 
Case No. 2005-09847 - 3 - JUDGMENT ENTRY

 _____________________________________ 

 JOSEPH T. CLARK 

 Judge 

cc: 

 

Janelle C. Totin 

Assistant Attorney General 

Corrections Litigation 

150 East Gay Street, 16th Floor 

Columbus, Ohio 43215 

John P. Reichley 

Assistant Attorney General 

150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor 

Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 

Richard F. Swope 

6480 East Main Street, Suite 102 

Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068 

MR/cmd

Filed August 11, 2010 

To S.C. reporter September 9, 2010