[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Davenport v. State, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-3414.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of De cisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O . 2016-O HIO -3414
T HE S TATE EX REL . D AVENPORT , A PPELLANT , v. T HE S TATE OF O HIO , A PPELLEE . [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Davenport v. State, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-3414.] Mandamus—R.C. 2969.25(C)—Failure to document balance of inmate account for six months preceding filing of compla int—Court of appeals’ dismissal of complaint affirmed. (No. 2015-1268—Submitted March 8, 2016—Decided June 16, 2016.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 14AP-1041.

_____________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Relator-appellant, Carlos Davenport, is an inma te who filed a petition
for a writ of mandamus in the Tenth District Court of Appeals requesting that court to order the trial court in his underlying cr iminal case to rule on motions that were allegedly pending. He filed an affidavit of indigency in the court of appeals thatS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 requested a waiver of fees and costs. Ho wever, he failed to provide a statement of
the amount in his inmate account for each of the preceding six months, as required by R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). {¶ 2} The court of appeals’ magistrate recommended that the court grant the
state’s motion to dismiss the case for Dave nport’s failure to satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2969.25. No objections were filed, and the court of appeals accepted and adopted the magistrate’s decision and recommendation as to that issue and dismissed the case. Davenport appealed. {¶ 3} The court of appeals was correct to dismiss the case on the basis recommended by the magistrate. “ ‘T he requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory, and failure to comply with them subjects an inmate’s action to
dismissal.’ ” Boles v. Knab , 129 Ohio St.3d 222, 2011-Ohio-2859, 951 N.E.2d 389, ¶ 1, quoting State ex rel. White v. Bechtel , 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 N.E.2d 634, ¶ 5; State ex rel. McGrath v. McDonnell , 126 Ohio St.3d 511, 2010- Ohio-4726, 935 N.E.2d 830, ¶ 1. We therefore a ffirm the judgment of the court of appeals. {¶ 4} Finally, we deny Davenport’s motion for oral argument. Oral argument in a direct appeal is discreti onary. S.Ct.Prac.R. 17.02(A). None of the factors we normally consider in granting a motion for oral argument exists in this

case. See State ex rel. Manley v. Walsh , 142 Ohio St.3d 384, 2014-Ohio-4563, 31 N.E.3d 608, ¶ 16, citing Appenzeller v. Miller , 136 Ohio St.3d 378, 2013-Ohio3719, 996 N.E.2d 919, ¶ 4, and cases cited therein. Judgment affirmed
and motion denied.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , K ENNEDY , F RENCH , and O’N EILL , JJ., concur.

_________________ Carlos Davenport, pro se.January Term, 2016

3 Ron O’Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jeffrey C. Rogers, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

_________________