[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, Tingler, a self-represented litigant, filed a Complaint against 

Respondent Wyandot County Prosecutor’s Office. In the Complaint, Tingler asserts: 

“Prosecutor Rowland falsely claims no records exist regarding [former Wyandot County 

Prosecutor] Jonathan Miller’s death. Prosecutor Rowland and his investigator William 

Latham were on the scene that day and did a joint investigation with Police, Sheriff and 

coroner. Records do exist.” 

{¶3} The Court appointed a Special Master who referred the cause to mediation. 

After mediation failed to successfully resolve all disputed issues between the parties, the 

case was returned to the Special Master’s docket. 

{¶4} On July 28, 2022, Respondent responded to Tingler’s Complaint and moved 

to dismiss the Complaint. Thereafter, on August 3, 2022, the Special Master issued a 

Report and Recommendation (R&R). The Special Master states, “Considering all the 

evidence before the court, the Special Master finds [Requester] has not proven by clear 

and convincing evidence that any responsive records existed in the [Respondent]’s 

keeping at the time the request was made.” (Report and Recommendation, 5.) The 

CHARLES TINGLER

 Requester

 v. 

WYANDOT COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S 

OFFICE

 Respondent

Case No. 2022-00437PQ

Judge Patrick E. Sheeran

DECISION AND ENTRY
Case No. 2022-00437PQ -2- DECISION & ENTRY

Special Master concludes: “Upon consideration of the pleadings and attachments the 

special master recommends the court deny requester’s claim for production of records 

for failure to show that the requested records existed in respondent’s keeping. It is 

recommended that costs be assessed to requester.” (Report and Recommendation, 5.) 

{¶5} On August 16, 2022, Tingler filed objections to the Report and 

Recommendation. In a certificate of service, Tingler certifies that he served a copy of his 

objections on Respondent’s counsel “via U.S. mail.” A week later—on August 23, 2022—

Respondent filed 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 that the requested records existed in Respondent’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 document labeled 

“Memorandum in Opposition to Respondent’s Response to Relator’s Objections.”

II. Law and Analysis

{¶7} R.C. 2743.75(F)(2) governs the filing of objections to a report and 

recommendation issued under the special proceeding established in R.C. 2743.75. See

Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 163 Ohio St.3d 337, 2020-Ohio5371, 170 N.E.3d 768, ¶ 11 (“[t]he enactment of R.C. 2743.75 created an alternative 

means to resolve public-records dispute”). Under R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), either party “may 

object to the report and recommendation within seven business days after receiving the

report and recommendation by filing a written objection with the clerk and sending a copy 

to the other party by certified mail, return receipt requested. * * * If either party timely

objects, the other party may file with the clerk a response within seven business days 

after receiving the objection and send a copy of the response to the objecting party by 

certified mail, return receipt requested. The court, within seven business days after the 
Case No. 2022-00437PQ -3- DECISION & ENTRY

response to the objection is filed, shall issue a final order that adopts, modifies, or rejects 

the report and recommendation.”

{¶8} Both Respondent’s response and Tingler’s objections appear to contain 

procedural irregularities. Respondent failed to serve its response on Tingler by certified 

mail, return receipt requested (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 certified mail, return receipt requested (according to a certificate 

of service accompanying Tingler’s objections), as required by R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), and 

Tingler’s filing of August 23, 2022, is not statutorily authorized, as R.C. 2743.75(F)(2) 

does not permit a reply to a non-objecting party’s response. 

{¶9} The Court is cognizant that Tingler is a self-represented litigant but, as the 

Tenth District Court of Appeals has explained,

While one has the right to represent himself or herself and one may proceed 

into litigation as a pro se litigant, the pro se litigant is to be treated the same 

as one trained in the law as far as the requirement to follow procedural law

and the adherence to court rules. If the courts treat pro se litigants

differently, the court begins to depart from its duty of impartiality and 

prejudices the handling of the case as it relates to other litigants represented 

by counsel.

Justice v. Lutheran Social Servs., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 92AP-1153, 1993 Ohio App. 

LEXIS 2029, at *6 (Apr. 8, 1993). Accord State ex rel. Fuller v. Mengel, 100 Ohio St.3d 

352, 2003-Ohio-6448, 800 N.E.2d 25, ¶ 10, quoting Sabouri v. Ohio Dept of Job & Family 

Servs., 145 Ohio App. 3d 651, 654, 763 N.E.2d 1238 (2001) (“‘[i]t is well established 

that pro se litigants are presumed to have knowledge of the law and legal procedures and 

that they are held to the same standard as litigants who are represented by counsel’”).

{¶10} A review of Tingler’s objections discloses that Tingler does not call the 

Court’s attention 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 recommendation shall be specific and

state with particularity all grounds for the objection”). Rather, in the objections Tingler 

essentially claims that the Wyandot County Prosecutor has forged a document and the 

Prosecutor has filed a materially false affidavit. And in the conclusion of the objections

Tingler asks the Court to issue orders to non-parties, as Tingler states: “PLAINTIFF 

RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS AN ORDER FROM THIS COURT THAT DIRECTS 

DIANE SCALA-BARNETT, LUCAS COUNTY CORONER, AND SHELLY SECOY, 

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT FOR THE WYANDOT COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE 

TO FILE ANY AFFIDAVITS AND PROVIDE DOCUMENTS IN THEIR POSSESSION IN 

CONNECTION WITH THE DEATH OF WYANDOT COUNTY PROSECUTOR, 

JONATHAN MILLER. PLAINTIFF WOULD ALSO REQUEST AN ORDER DIRECTING 

DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE THOSE SAME RECORDS IN HIS POSSESSION.”

{¶11} Upon review, notwithstanding Tingler’s objections, the Court determines that 

the Special Master has correctly applied statutory law and case law as they existed at the

time of the filing of the Complaint. The Special Master’s recommendations are well taken.

III. Conclusion

{¶12} The Court OVERRULES Tingler’s objections. The Court adopts the Report 

and Recommendation. Respondent’s motion to dismiss filed on July 28, 2022, is moot. 
Case No. 2022-00437PQ -5- DECISION & ENTRY

Court costs are assessed to Tingler. The Clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this 

judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.

PATRICK E. SHEERAN

Judge

Filed September 1, 2022

Sent to S.C. Reporter 10/6/22