Case Name: Norris, Appellant, v. Budgake, Dir., Appellee
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 2000-06-21
Citations: 89 Ohio St. 3d 208
Docket Number: No. 00-323
Parties: Norris, Appellant, v. Budgake, Dir., Appellee.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 89
Pages: 208–209

Head Matter:
Norris, Appellant, v. Budgake, Dir., Appellee.
[Cite as Norris v. Budgake (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 208.]
(No. 00-323
Submitted April 25, 2000
Decided June 21, 2000.)
Robert Lee Norris, pro se.
Marietta Mestel, Canton Assistant Law Director, for appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Budgake's uncontroverted summary judgment evidence established that the records that Norris requested did not exist. Budgake had no duty to create new documents to satisfy Norris's request. State ex rel. Taxpayers Coalition v. Lakewood (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 385, 389-390, 715 N.E.2d 179, 183; State ex rel. White v. Goldsberry (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 153, 154, 707 N.E.2d 496, 497. And Norris failed to respond by affidavit or as otherwise provided by Civ.R. 56 to set forth specific facts showing the existence of a genuine triable issue that would have precluded summary judgment. See Mootispaw v. Eckstein (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 383, 385, 667 N.E.2d 1197, 1199; Civ.R. 56(E). Therefore, Norris was not entitled to the writ.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.