[Cite as Caddy v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2010-Ohio-4216.]

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

MATTHEW CADDY 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2009-08624-AD 

Clerk Miles C. Durfey 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FINDINGS OF FACT 

{¶ 1} 1) Plaintiff, Matthew Caddy, an inmate incarcerated at defendant’s 

North Central Correctional Institution (NCCI), stated that he received a food box on 

August 14, 2008 and placed the food in his locker box which he secured with a padlock 

he had purchased at defendant’s Correctional Reception Center in December 2005. At 

sometime while plaintiff was at work on August 14, 2008, an unidentified individual 

broke into his locked locker box and stole his food items. 

{¶ 2} 2) Plaintiff advised that he reported the theft to NCCI staff at 

approximately 3:45 p.m. on August 14, 2008 and forwarded a list of the stolen items at 

approximately 6:00 p.m. on that same day. According to plaintiff, NCCI personnel did 

not conduct any search for his stolen property on the day that he reported the theft. 

Plaintiff claimed that NCCI staff conducted a search on August 19, 2008 and recovered 

some of his stolen property; specifically five jars of coffee. Plaintiff further claimed that 

the recovered coffee was never returned to his possession. In all, plaintiff related that 

he suffered the “loss of 10 jars of Folgers coffee; 18 Butterfinger candy bars; 18 
Snickers; 16 Junior Mints; 16 Hershey’s candy bars with almonds; 19 Reese’s cups; 20 

Kit Kat; 9 Skittles; 19 M & M, plain; 1 blue t-shirt (Fruit of the Loom); 1 bag Midnight 

Special Tobacco; 1 padlock (damaged); 1 pouch Bugler tobacco.” Plaintiff asserted that 

his property was stolen, damaged, or unrecovered as a proximate cause of negligence 

on the part of NCCI personnel. Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover damages 

in the amount of $157.34, the replacement cost of his stolen and damaged property. 

Payment of the filing fee was waived. 

{¶ 3} 3) Plaintiff submitted a copy of a “Theft/Loss Report” compiled by NCCI 

employee, Officer Burrell, after plaintiff reported the locker box theft on August 14, 2008. 

Burrell noted that inmate living areas were searched “in and around area of theft.” 

Apparently no property was recovered incident to this search. Plaintiff submitted a 

handwritten statement from a fellow inmate identified as Robert Jenkins who wrote: 

“[t]here was no search or shakedown on August 14, 2008.” Jenkins recalled “[t]here 

was a search and shakedown on August 19, 2008.” Additionally, Jenkins recalled he 

observed two NCCI employees “carrying jars of Folgers coffee they apparently had 

seized.” The Jenkins statement was signed by five other inmates. Plaintiff submitted 

typed and signed statements from fellow inmates Rodney A. Webber, Bennie S. 

Robinson, Christopher Dodge, Curtis Malone, and Robert Jenkins. All five of these 

typed statements contain the same language as the submitted handwritten statement 

from Robert Jenkins. 

{¶ 4} 4) Defendant contended that plaintiff failed to offer sufficient evidence to 

establish his property was stolen and unrecovered as a proximate cause of negligence 

on the part of NCCI staff. Defendant explained that two searches were conducted after 

plaintiff reported the theft with the second search involving a shakedown of the area. 

Defendant acknowledged that coffee was confiscated from an inmate during the course 

of the shakedown search when he could not provide proof of ownership, reporting that 

the coffee “was a gift from a friend.” Defendant related that “[t]he friend did have a 

receipt for the coffee, so it was impossible to tell whether the coffee belong to Plaintiff or 

the inmate’s friend.” Defendant advised that the confiscated coffee was destroyed as 

contraband “[b]ecause of the inability to determine ownership.” Defendant insisted that 

the confiscated coffee “could not be clearly identified” as plaintiff’s property, therefore it 

was not returned to him. 
{¶ 5} 5) Plaintiff filed a response asserting that NCCI staff failed to conduct a 

timely search for his property after he reported the theft. Plaintiff contended that the 

failure to conduct a timely search constituted actionable negligence. Plaintiff also 

contended that defendant was negligent in providing him with an inadequate locker box 

and the choice of an inadequate lock to secure his property. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

{¶ 6} 1) In order to prevail, plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the 

evidence, that defendant owed him a duty, that defendant breached that duty, and that 

defendant’s breach proximately caused his injuries. Armstrong v. Best Buy Company, 

Inc., 99 Ohio St. 3d 79, 2003-Ohio-2573,¶8 citing Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, 

Inc. (1984), 15 Ohio St. 3d 75, 77, 15 OBR 179, 472 N.E. 2d 707. 

{¶ 7} 2) “Whether a duty is breached and whether the breach proximately 

caused an injury are normally questions of fact, to be decided by . . . the court . . .” 

Pacher v. Invisible Fence of Dayton, 154 Ohio App. 3d 744, 2003-Ohio-5333, 798 N.E. 

2d 1121, ¶41, citing Miller v. Paulson (1994), 97 Ohio App. 3d 217, 221, 646 N.E. 2d 

521; Mussivand v. David (1989), 45 Ohio St. 3d 314, 318, 544 N.E. 2d 265. 

{¶ 8} 3) Plaintiff has no right to pursue a claim for destroyed property in which 

he cannot prove any right of ownership. DeLong v. Department of Rehabilitation and 

Correction (1988), 88-06000-AD. 

{¶ 9} 4) Although not strictly responsible for a prisoner’s property, defendant 

had at least the duty of using the same degree of care as it would use with its own 

property. Henderson v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1979), 76-0356-AD. 

{¶ 10} 5) Plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the 

evidence, that he suffered a loss and that this loss was proximately caused by 

defendant’s negligence. Barnum v. Ohio State University (1977), 76-0368-AD. 

{¶ 11} 6) This court in Mullett v. Department of Correction (1976), 76-0292-AD, 

held that defendant does not have the liability of an insurer (i.e., is not liable without 

fault) with respect to inmate property, but that it does have the duty to make “reasonable 

attempts to protect, or recover” such property. 

{¶ 12} 7) Plaintiff must produce evidence which affords a reasonable basis for 

the conclusion defendant’s conduct is more likely than not a substantial factor in 

bringing about the harm. Parks v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1985), 
85-01546-AD. 

{¶ 13} 8) In order to recover against a defendant in a tort action, plaintiff must 

produce evidence which furnishes a reasonable basis for sustaining his claim. If his 

evidence furnishes a basis for only a guess, among different possibilities, as to any 

essential issue in the case, he fails to sustain the burden as to such issue. Landon v. 

Lee Motors, Inc. (1954), 161 Ohio St. 82, 53 O.O. 25, 118 N.E. 2d 147. 

{¶ 14} 9) The fact that a theft may have occurred is insufficient to show 

defendant’s negligence. Williams v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1985), 83-

07091-AD. Plaintiff must show defendant breached a duty of ordinary or reasonable 

care. Williams. 

{¶ 15} 10) Defendant is not responsible for actions of other inmates unless an 

agency relationship is shown or it is shown that defendant was negligent. Walker v. 

Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1978), 78-0217-AD; Melson v. Ohio Department of 

Rehabilitation and Correction (2003), Ct. of Cl. No. 2003-04236-AD, 2003-Ohio-3615; 

Jenkins v. Richland Correctional Inst., Ct. of Cl. No. 2003-01768-AD, 2003-Ohio-4483. 

{¶ 16} 11) The fact defendant supplied plaintiff with a locker box to secure 

valuables constitutes prima facie evidence of defendant discharging its duty of 

reasonable care. Watson v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1987), 86-

02635-AD. Defendant has no duty to provide inmates access to extraordinary devices 

in which to secure property. See Wallace v. Grafton Corr. Inst., Ct. of Cl. No. 2009-

01743-AD, 2009-Ohio-5741. 

{¶ 17} 12) Generally, defendant has a duty to conduct a search for plaintiff’s 

property within a reasonable time after being notified of the theft. Phillips v. Columbus 

Correctional Facility (1981), 79-0132-AD; Russell v. Warren Correctional Inst. (1999), 

98-03305-AD. 

{¶ 18} 13) However, a search is not always necessary. In Copeland v. 

Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1985), 85-03638-AD, the court held that 

defendant had no duty to search for missing property if the nature of the property is 

such that it is indistinguishable and cannot be traced to plaintiff. In the instant case, all 

of plaintiff’s property items claimed were indistinguishable and, therefore, no duty to 

search arose. 

{¶ 19} 14) Plaintiff has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 
defendant was negligent in respect to making any attempts to recover stolen property. 

See Williams v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Ct. of Cl. No. 2005-11094-AD, 2006-Ohio7207. Plaintiff has failed to prove defendant delayed in conducting any search or 

conducted an inadequate search. 

{¶ 20} 15) Plaintiff has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 

any of his property was stolen as a proximate result of any negligent conduct 

attributable to defendant. Fitzgerald v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

(1998), 97-10146-AD. Hall v. London Correctional Inst., Ct. of Cl. No. 2008-04803-AD, 

2008-Ohio-7088. 

 

 

 

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 

MATTHEW CADDY 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2009-08624-AD 

Clerk Miles C. Durfey 

ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION

 Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and, for the reasons set forth 

in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor 
of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. 

 

 ________________________________ 

 MILES C. DURFEY 

 Clerk 

Entry cc: 

Matthew Caddy, #506-006 Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel 

670 Marion Williamsport Road Department of Rehabilitation 

Marion, Ohio 43302 and Correction 

 770 West Broad Street 

 Columbus, Ohio 43222 

RDK/laa 

4/12 

Filed 5/4/10 

Sent to S.C. reporter 9/2/10