[Cite as Tingler v. Wyandot Cty. Prosecutor's Office , 2022

- Ohio

- 3559.]

{¶1} Requester Charles Tingler objects to a Special Master ’ s Report and Recommendation in this public

- records case. The Court overrules Tingler ’ s objections for reasons set forth below. I. Background {¶2} On May 25, 2022, Ting ler , a self

- represented litiga nt, filed a C omplai nt against Respondent Wyandot County Prosecutor ’ s Office . In the C omplaint, Ting ler assert s :

“ Prosecutor Rowland fal sely claims no records exist regarding [former Wyandot County Prosecutor] Jonathan Miller ’ s death. Prosecutor Rowland and his investigator William Latha m were on the scene that day and did a join t investi g ation with Police, She riff and

co r oner. Records do exist. ” {¶3} The Court app ointed a Spe cial Master who referred the cause to mediation

. After mediation failed to succes sfully resolve all disputed issues between the parties , the case was returned to the Sp ecial Master ’ s docket. {¶4} On July 28 , 2022, Respondent responded to Tingler ’ s C omplaint and moved to d i smiss the Complaint. Th ereafter, o n August 3, 2022, the Special Master issued a R e port and Recommendation (R&R)

. The Speci al Master states , “ Consideri ng all the evidence before the court, the Special M aster finds [Requester ] has not proven by clear and c onvincing evidence that any responsive rec ords exist ed in the [ Respondent ] ’ s keeping at the time the request was made. ” (Report and R e commendation, 5.) The CHARLES TINGLER Requester

v.
WYANDOT C OUNTY PROSECUTOR ’ S OFFICE Respondent Case No. 2022

- 00437PQ Judge Patri ck E. Sheeran
DECISION AND ENTRYCase No. 2022

- 00437PQ

- 2

- DECISION & ENTRY

Special Master concludes: “ Upon consideration of the p leadings and attachments the special master recommends the court deny requester’s claim for prod uctio n of records for fai lure to show that the requested records existed in respondent ’ s keeping. It i s recommended that costs be assessed to requester

. ” (Repo rt and Recommendation, 5.) {¶5} On August 16, 2022, Tingl er filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. In a c ertificate of s ervice, Tingler certi fies that he served a copy of his objections on Respondent ’ s counse l “ via U.S. mail. ” A week later

— on August 23, 2022

— Respondent fi led a response to Tingler ’ s objections , asking the Court to adopt the Report and Recommendation and deny Tingler ’ s claim for production of records for failure to show th at the requested records existed in R espondent’s keeping

. Respondent ’ s counsel certifies that she served the response “ by e

- mail and/or U.S. Mail, postage prepaid ” to Tingler

. {¶6} Without leave, on August 23, 2022 , Tingler filed a d ocument labeled

“ Memorand um in Opposition to Respondent ’ s Response to Relator ’ s Objections. ” II. Law a nd A nalysis {¶7} R .C. 2743.75( F) (2) governs the filing of objections to a r eport and

r ecommendation issued under the sp e cial pr oce edin g established in R.C. 2743.75

. See W e lsh

- Huggin s v. Je fferson Cty. Prosecutor ’ s Office , 163 Ohio St.3d 337, 2020

- Oh i o 53 71, 17 0 N

. E.3d 768, ¶ 1 1 ( “ [ t] he enact ment of R.C. 2743.75 created a n alternati ve means to resolve public

- reco r ds disput e ” )

. U nder R.C. 2 743.75(F) (2), either par ty “may ob j ect to the r epo rt and recomm endati on within seven busin ess days after rece ivin g the rep o r t a n d recommendat ion by fi ling a written objection with th e clerk and send in g a copy to the other party b y ce rtified mail , r eturn r eceipt req uested. * * * I f either p a rty timely

o bje ct s, the othe r part y may fil e with the c lerk a response wit hin seven bus i n es s da ys after re ceiving t he obj ection and send a c opy of the response to th e objecting part y by

c ertifi e d ma il, return r ece ipt req uested. T he court, withi n seven bu s ine ss days a fte r theCase No. 2022

- 00437PQ

- 3

- DECISION & ENTRY

respons e to t he object ion is filed , shall issue a fin al o rder that a do p t s, modifies, or reject s the report and recommen dation. ” {¶8} Both Respondent ’ s response and Tingler ’ s objections appear to con tain procedural irregula rities

. Respondent failed to s er ve its response on Ting ler by ce rtified mail, retur n receipt req u ested ( according to a certificate of service accompanying Respondent ’s response ) , as required by R.C. 2743.75(F)(2 )

. Tingler failed to serve a copy of his objections by ce rtified mail, ret ur n receipt req u ested ( according to a certificate of service accompanying Tingler ’s objections ) , as required by R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), and Tingler ’ s filing of Au gust 23, 2022 , is not statutorily authorized , as R.C. 2743.75(F)( 2) does not permit a reply to a n on - objecting party ’ s response. {¶9} The Court is co gnizant that Tingler is a self

- re present ed l i tigant but, as the Tent h District Court of Appeals has explained , W hile one has t he right to represent himself or her s elf and one ma y proceed in to litigati on as a pr o se litigant, th e pro se litigant is to be treated the same

as on e trained in the law as f ar as the requirement t o follow procedural law and the adherence to court ru les. If the courts treat pro se litigants differently, t he court beg ins to depa rt from it s duty of imparti a lity and prejudices the handling of the case as it relates to other liti g ants represented by cou nsel

. Justice v. Lutheran Social Servs. , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 92AP

- 1153 , 1993 Ohio App. LEX IS 2029, at *6 (Apr. 8, 1993)

. Accord State e x re l. Ful ler v. Me n gel

, 100 Ohio St.3d 352, 2003

- Ohio

- 6448, 800 N.E .2d 25, ¶ 10 , qu oting Sa b ouri v. Ohio De p t of Jo b & Family Serv s. , 145 Ohio App. 3d 651, 654, 763 N.E.2d 1238 (2001) ( “ ‘ [i ]t is well establish ed that pro se litigants a re presumed to have kn ow ledge of the la w and legal pro cedures and that they are held to the same s tan dard as lit i gants who are r e p r esent ed by counsel ’ ” )

. {¶10} A review of Tingler ’ s objections discloses that Tingler does not ca ll the Court ’ s atten tion to any error in the Report and Recommendation. See R. C.Case No. 2022

- 00437PQ

- 4

- DECISION & ENTRY

2743.75(F)(2) ( “ [a] ny objection to the report and recommen dation shall be specific and state with particularity all grounds for the objection ” ). Rather, in the objections Ti ngle r essent ially claims that t he Wyandot County Pro sec utor has forged a docume nt and the Prosecutor has filed a materially false affidavit

. And i n the conclusion of t he objections Tingler a sks the Court to issue orders to non

- parties , as Tingler states : “ PLAIN TIFF RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS AN ORDER FROM THIS COU RT THAT DIRECTS DIANE SCALA

- BARNETT, LUCAS COUNTY CORONER, AND SHELLY SECOY, ADMINISTRATIV E ASSISTANT FOR THE W YANDOT COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE TO FILE ANY AFFIDAVITS AND PROVIDE DOCUMENTS IN THEIR POSSESSION IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEATH OF WYANDOT COUNTY PR OSECUTOR, JONATHAN MILLER. PLAINTIFF WOULD ALSO REQUEST AN ORDER DIREC TING DEFENDANT TO PR OVIDE THOSE SAME RECO RDS IN HIS POSSESSION. ” {¶11} Upon review, notwithstanding Tingler ’ s objections, the Court determines that the Spec ial Master has correctly applied sta tutory law and case law as they existed at the time of the filing of the Complaint

. The Special Mast er ’ s recommendations are well taken. III. Conclusion {¶12} The Court OVERR ULES Tingler ’ s objections. The C ourt adopts the Report and Recommendat ion. Respondent ’ s mo tion to dismiss filed on July 28, 20 22, is moot.Case No. 2022

- 00437PQ

- 5

- DECISION & ENTRY

Court costs are assessed to Ting ler. T he C lerk shal l serve upon all parti es notic e of th is judgm ent and it s date of entr y upon the journal.

PATRICK E . SHEERAN Judge

Filed September 1 , 2022 S ent to S.C. Reporter 10/ 6 /22