Court Opinion

ID: 9882966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:22:35.56058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:27.048373
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re Layton, 2023-Ohio-3344.]

                              IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

 IN RE: DEVAUN LAYTON                           Case No. 2023-00003VI

 DEVAUN LAYTON                                  Magistrate Holly True Shaver

         Applicant                              MAGISTRATE DECISION

        {¶1}     On January 3, 2023, Devaun Layton (“applicant”) filed a notice of appeal of
the final decision of the Attorney General which had denied his claim for failure to fully
cooperate with law enforcement pursuant to R.C. 2743.60(C) with regard to an incident
which occurred on May 25, 2019. On August 10, 2023, a hearing was held before this
magistrate in the above captioned case. During the hearing, applicant and his mother
Martha Layton testified regarding the May 25, 2019 event and aftermath, including
additional criminal incidents that occurred as a result of the original May 25, 2019 incident.
After this testimony, the Assistant Attorney General recognized that the initial
investigation was incomplete and requested that the case be remanded in order to
complete a full investigation to include the newly disclosed facts. Based on the testimony
presented at the hearing and the request of the Attorney General, the magistrate
recommends that this claim be REMANDED to the Attorney General for further
investigation.
        {¶2}     A party may file written objections to the magistrate’s decision within 14
days of the filing of the decision, whether or not the court has adopted the decision during
that 14-day period as permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i).          If any party timely files
objections, any other party may also file objections not later than ten days after the first
objections are filed. A party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of
any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as finding
of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party timely and
Case No. 2023-00003VI                        -2-                                    DECISION

specifically objects to that factual finding or legal conclusion within 14 days of the filing of
the decision, as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).

                                             HOLLY TRUE SHAVER
                                             Magistrate

      A copy of the foregoing was personally served upon the Attorney General and sent
by regular mail to:
 Filed 08/10/2023
 Sent to S.C. Reporter 9/20/23
Case No. 2023-00003VI                       -3-                                   DECISION

                          IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

 IN RE: DEVAUN LAYTON                          Case No. 2023-00003VI

 DEVAUN LAYTON                                 Judge Lisa L. Sadler

       Applicant                               ORDER

       {¶3}   On August 10, 2023, a hearing was held in this matter before a Magistrate
of this court. On August 15, 2023, the Magistrate issued a Decision wherein she found
that based on the testimony of Applicant and his mother, the Attorney General recognized
that the initial investigation was incomplete and requested that the case be remanded for
further investigation.
       {¶4}   Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) states, in part: “A party may file written objections to a
magistrate’s decision within fourteen days of the filing of the decision, whether or not the
court has adopted the decision during that fourteen-day period as permitted by Civ.R.
53(D)(4)(e)(i).” Applicant stated at the hearing that he did not object to remanding the
case for further investigation.
       {¶5}   Upon review of the claim file, and the Magistrate’s Decision, it is the Court’s
finding that the Magistrate was correct in her analysis of the issues and application of the
law. Accordingly, this court adopts the Magistrate’s Decision and recommendation as its
own.
       {¶6}   IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
       {¶7}   The August 15, 2023 Decision of the Magistrate is ADOPTED;
       {¶8}   This claim is REMANDED to the Attorney General for further investigation;
       {¶9}   Costs assumed by the reparations fund.

                                            LISA L. SADLER
                                            Judge
Case No. 2023-00003VI                    -4-                               DECISION

      A copy of the foregoing was personally served upon the Attorney General and sent
by regular mail to Trumbull County Prosecuting Attorney and to:
Filed 08/16/2023
Sent to S.C. Reporter 9/20/223