Case Name: The State ex rel. Porter, Appellant, v. Cleveland Department of Public Safety et al., Appellees
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1998-12-30
Citations: 84 Ohio St. 3d 258
Docket Number: No. 98-1140
Parties: The State ex rel. Porter, Appellant, v. Cleveland Department of Public Safety et al., Appellees.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 84
Pages: 258–259

Head Matter:
The State ex rel. Porter, Appellant, v. Cleveland Department of Public Safety et al., Appellees.
[Cite as State ex rel. Porter v. Cleveland Dept. of Pub. Safety (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 258.]
(No. 98-1140
Submitted October 27, 1998
Decided December 30, 1998.)
Paul Porter, pro se.
Sylvester Summers, Jr., Cleveland Director of Law, Joseph J. Jerse, Chief Assistant Director of Law, and Anthony N. Palombo, Assistant Director of Law, for respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Porter asserts in his propositions of law that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his complaint for a writ of mandamus. For the reasons that follow, Porter's claims lack merit.
First, as the court of appeals correctly held, appellees did not have a clear legal duty under R.C. 149.43 to transmit copies of the requested records to Porter in prison by mail or other means. State ex rel. Iacovone v. Kaminski (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 189, 190, 690 N.E.2d 4, 5; State ex rel. Mayes v. Holman (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 147, 149, 666 N.E.2d 1132, 1134.
Second, Porter waived his appellate claims concerning appellees' alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and his constitutional right of access because he failed to raise these claims in the court of appeals. " 'Ordinarily, reviewing courts do not consider questions not presented to the court whose judgment is sought to be reversed.' " See State ex rel. Quarto Mining Co. v. Foreman (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 78, 81, 679 N.E.2d 706, 709, quoting Goldberg v. Indus. Comm. (1936), 131 Ohio St. 399, 404, 6 O.O. 108, 110, 3 N.E.2d 364, 367.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.