[Cite as Fikes v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2024-Ohio-2826.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Joshua Fikes, :

Plaintiff-Appellant, :

 No. 24AP-115

v. : (Ct. of Cl. No. 2023-00314AD)

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation : (ACCELLERATED CLAENDAR)

and Correction,

:

Defendant-Appellee.

:

D E C I S I O N

Rendered on July 25, 2024

On brief: Joshua Fikes, pro se.

On brief: Byron D. Turner, Staff Counsel, for appellee Ohio 

Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.

APPEAL from the Court of Claims of Ohio

BEATTY BLUNT, J.

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Joshua Fikes, appeals the January 19, 2024 decision of 

the Court of Claims denying his motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B). 

Fikes asserts a single assignment of error, arguing that the “trial court erred in 

characterizing and denying plaintiff-appellant’s motion for relief from judgment under 

Civ.R. 60(B)(5) as a further appeal, when a Civ.R. 60(B) motion constitutes a collateral 

attack that R.C. 2743.10(D) does not prohibit.”

{¶ 2} Fikes filed this case on April 26, 2023, and asserted that he was entitled to 

damages from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”), because

while he was an inmate at the Marion Correctional Institution, ODRC lost a transcript and 

two compact discs that were mailed to him at the institution by the Hamilton County 

Probate Court in connection with the estate of his late father. Fikes asserted that the 
No. 24AP-115 2

transcript consisted of 101 pages with a fair market value of $4.50 per page, and that the 

two compact discs contained recordings of jailhouse telephone conversations between 

Fikes and his late father, his brother, and his sister, and had a “peculiar value to Plaintiff of 

no less than $5,000” apiece. He sought damages from ODRC in the amount of $10,454.50.

{¶ 3} On May 23, 2023, ODRC filed a motion to have Fikes’ case transferred to the 

Court of Claims administrative docket for decision by the clerk of court of claims, in 

accordance with R.C. 2743.10. Pursuant to subsection (A) of the statute, “[c]ivil actions 

against the state for ten thousand dollars or less shall be determined administratively by 

the clerk of the court of claims * * *.” Fikes objected to the transfer, but on June 21, 2023,

the Court of Claims issued an entry transferring the case:

Plaintiff alleges that the discs are without market value because 

they contained recordings with his family members and are 

irreplaceable, as he has no copies. However, Plaintiff further 

explains that his intention was to retain the discs because they 

included discussions regarding his late father’s estate planning 

as well as memorialized “a part of his family’s history for 

generations as a teaching.” Plaintiff reiterates his claim that 

Defendant is liable for the loss of the discs and transcripts as 

well as for the “peculiar value.”

While Plaintiff argues that the discs have peculiar value, the 

Court is not persuaded as to the discs value above market value. 

A party is not automatically entitled to an award of damages in 

an amount the party requests. “As a general rule, the measure 

of damages for lost, destroyed, or stolen property is the 

reasonable market value of the property immediately before it 

is lost, destroyed, or stolen.”

* * *

While the Court will not speculate as to the market value at this 

time, accepting the allegations of the complaint as true, the 

amount in controversy for the alleged loss of two compact discs 

and four sets of original transcripts cannot be more than 

$10,000, as a matter of law. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion 

to transfer the case to the administrative docket is GRANTED. 

This case is hereby TRANSFERRED to the administrative 

docket for determination pursuant to R.C. 2743.10.

(Citations omitted.) (June 21, 2023 Entry at 2-4.) Accordingly, the case was transferred to 

the court’s administrative docket, and on October 27, 2023, the clerk issued a 
No. 24AP-115 3

memorandum determination in favor of ODRC, who had demonstrated that the package 

was treated as contraband, and the transcripts and discs had been returned to the Hamilton 

County Probate Court because Fikes had not obtained pre-approval to receive the discs, as 

required under ODRC Policy 75 MAL-03(VI)(A)(9) and ODRC Policy 59 LEG-01(VI)(E)(8). 

On December 13, 2023, the Court of Claims reviewed the clerk’s determination, and 

confirmed that decision:

[Fikes] asserts that there is no proof that [Fike’s] legal mail was 

returned to Hamilton County Probate Court, and that the 

envelope in the investigation report and cited in the 

administrative determination is inadequate to show it was 

returned. * * * However, whether the mail was returned to the 

sender, destroyed, or confiscated is irrelevant. As the Clerk 

asserts in the administrative determination, it is wellestablished that “a correctional institution cannot be held liable 

for the loss of contraband property that an inmate has no right 

to possess.” Triplett v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility., 10th Dist. No. 

06AP-1296, 2007-Ohio-2526, ¶ 7, citing Beaverson v. Ohio 

Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 61 Ohio Misc.2d 249, 250 577 N.E. 2d 

(Ct. of Cl.1988).

* * *

Upon review of the record, the Court finds that there is no 

substantial error in the Deputy Clerk’s determination. See

L.C.C.R. 7(G)(6). Accordingly, the October 27, 2023 

administrative determination is CONFIRMED. Pursuant [to] 

R.C. 2743.10(D), no further appeal may be taken from this 

judgment. Court costs are assessed against Plaintiff.

(Dec. 13, 2023 Order at 1-2.)

{¶ 4} Fikes then filed a motion for Civ.R. 60(B) relief from the confirmation of the 

judgment. But on January 19, 2024, the court denied such relief:

On December 13, 2023, the Court confirmed the Deputy Clerk’s 

October 27, 2023 Administrative Determination upon review 

of Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Review. On January 12, 2024, 

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant 

Civ.R. 60(B). Pursuant [to] R.C. 2743.10(D), after the Court 

renders a judgment for an Administrative Determination upon 

a Motion for Court Review, “the judgment shall not be the 

subject of further appeal.”
No. 24AP-115 4

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. The costs 

associated with the processing of this entry are absorbed by the 

court.

(Jan. 19, 2024 Entry.) This appeal followed, and Fikes now argues that his motion for 

Civ.R. 60(B) relief was not barred by R.C. 2743.10(D). The statute provides that on “the 

motion of a party, the court of claims shall review the determination of the clerk upon the 

clerk’s report and papers filed in the action and shall enter judgment consistent with its 

findings. The judgment shall not be the subject of further appeal. No civil action arising 

out of the same transaction or set of facts may be commenced by the claimant in the court 

of claims.” Fikes claims that his motion was not an “further appeal” under the subsection, 

and therefore the court erred by denying it. ODRC responds that his motion simply 

reiterated the merits of his underlying claim, that the court of claims acted within its 

discretion to deny the motion, and that the court’s judgment should be affirmed.

{¶ 5} But we perceive a more fundamental problem—pursuant to plain language of 

R.C. 2743.10(D), this court itself lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of Fikes’ 

arguments. In Harris v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 21AP-326, 2021-

Ohio-4281, we observed:

R.C. 2743.10 expressly provides that there shall be no such 

appeal to this court where the action has initially been 

determined administratively by the clerk of the Court of 

Claims. Rink v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 

18AP-65, 2018-Ohio-3633, ¶ 6, quoting Maffeo v. Dept. of 

Agriculture, 10th Dist. No. 77AP-608, 1977 Ohio App. LEXIS 

7955 (Oct. 20, 1977.) This court has held that it lacks 

jurisdiction over an administrative appeal and that “there shall 

be no such appeal to this court where the action has initially 

been determined administratively by the clerk of the Court of 

Claims.” Guy v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 

19AP-457, 2019-Ohio-4957, ¶ 7.

Because appellant’s civil action against ODRC was determined 

administratively by the clerk of the Court of Claims, this court 

does not have jurisdiction over appellant’s appeal.

Harris, 2021-Ohio-4281 at ¶ 11-12. There is no meaningful difference between the situation 

we faced in Harris and the case we address today; the fact that Fikes is claiming to appeal 

from a Civ.R. 60(B) decision refusing to reconsider the judgment is insignificant, as the 

statute specifically states that “the judgment shall not be the subject of further appeal.” 
No. 24AP-115 5

(Emphasis added.) R.C. 2743.10(D). Pursuant to the Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section

3(B)(2), “[c]ourts of appeals shall have such jurisdiction as may be provided by law to 

review and affirm, modify, or reverse judgments or final orders of the courts of record 

inferior to the court of appeals within the district * * *.” The plain language of R.C. 

2743.10(D) forbids this court from exercising jurisdiction in matters such as this. 

Accordingly, Fikes’ appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

JAMISON and LELAND, JJ., concur.