Court Opinion

ID: 9352723
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-09 16:09:20.451595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:58:02.800593
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Rose v. Fairfield Cty. Sheriff Office Jail, 2022-Ohio-4827.]

                                IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

 JOSEPH ROY ROSE                                           Case No. 2022-00548PQ

         Requester                                         Judge Patrick E. Sheeran

         v.                                                DECISION AND ENTRY

 FAIRFIELD COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE
 JAIL

         Respondent

         {¶1} Requester Joseph Roy Rose objects to a Special Master’s Report and
Recommendation in this public-records case. Respondent opposes Rose’s objections.
The Court overrules Rose’s objections for reasons set forth below.
    I.        Background
         {¶2} On July 12, 2022, Joseph Roy Rose, a self-represented litigant, filed a
Complaint against Respondent Fairfield County Sheriff Office Jail, alleging a denial of
access to public records in violation of R.C. 149.43(B). Rose handwrites in the Complaint:
“Mr. Hawks will not give me my video of them hurting me / with no reason why.” The
Court appointed a Special Master who referred the case to mediation. After mediation
failed to successfully resolve all disputed issues between the parties, the case was
returned to the Special Master’s docket. In a single filing Respondent responded to
Rose’s Complaint and moved to dismiss Rose’s Complaint on grounds of mootness.
         {¶3} On November 8, 2022, the Special Master issued a Report and
Recommendation (R&R). The Special has recommended denying Respondent’s motion
to dismiss. (R&R, 3.) In the Report and Recommendation, the Special Master made
several findings. (R&R, 3,4,5,6,8.) Among the findings, the Special Master
         [found] that the sixteen weeks between the May 2, 2022 request and the
         SO’s [Sheriff’s Office] first attempt to deliver records on August 22, 2022
Case No. 2022-00548PQ                          -2-                        DECISION & ENTRY

          exceeds any reasonable period of time necessary to provide the records.
          See generally State ex rel. Ware v. Bureau of Sentence Computation, 10th
          Dist. Franklin No. 21-AP-419, 2022-Ohio-3562, ¶ 2, 16-17 and cases cited
          therein. The fact that the SO later located and copied the records in less
          than the five weeks between the filing of the complaint and delivery to Rose
          is demonstrative evidence that the process did not require sixteen weeks.
          On the facts and circumstances before the court, the Special Master finds
          the SO failed to make copies of the requested records available within a
          reasonable period of time, in violation of R.C. 149.43(B)(1).
(R&R, 8.) The Special Master states in the Report and Recommendation’s conclusion:
                 Upon consideration of the pleadings and attachments the Special
          Master recommends the court find that requester’s claim for production of
          records is now moot. The Special Master further recommends the court find
          that respondent failed to produce the requested public records within a
          reasonable period of time. It is recommended requester be entitled to
          recover from respondent the amount of the filing fee of twenty-five dollars
          and any other costs associated with the action that were incurred by
          requester, and that court costs be assessed to respondent.
(R&R, 8.)
          {¶4} On November 30, 2022, Rose filed written objections to the Report and
Recommendation. Rose’s objections are not accompanied by a completed proof of
service that states the date and manner of service.
          {¶5} Nine days after Rose filed his objections—on December 9, 2022—
Respondent filed a written response to Rose’s objections. Respondent’s response is
accompanied by a certificate of service in which Respondent’s counsel certifies that a
copy of the response was served upon Rose “via U.S. Certified Mail, return receipt
requested and electronic mail.” Respondent essentially urges the Court to overrule
Rose’s objections because Rose has failed to meet procedural requirements as to proper
service of his objections and because the Special Master was correct in determining that
Rose has failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that additional video
exists.
Case No. 2022-00548PQ                          -3-                        DECISION & ENTRY

       {¶6} Respondent did not timely file any objections to the Special Master’s Report
and Recommendation.
   II. Law and Analysis
       {¶7} The General Assembly created an alternative means to resolve public-records
disputes through the enactment of R.C. 2743.75. Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty.
Prosecutor’s Office, 163 Ohio St.3d 337, 2020-Ohio-5371, 170 N.E.3d 768, ¶ 11. See
R.C. 2743.75(A). Under R.C. 2743.75(F)(1), not later than seven business days after
receiving a response of a public office or person responsible for public records, or a
motion to dismiss a complaint, if applicable, a special master is required to “submit to the
court of claims a report and recommendation based on the ordinary application of
statutory law and case law as they existed at the time of the filing of the complaint.”
However, for good cause shown, a special master “may extend the seven-day period for
the submission of the report and recommendation to the court of claims under this division
by an additional seven business days.” R.C. 2743.75(F)(1).
       {¶8} R.C. 2743.75(F)(2) governs the filing of objections to a special master’s report
and recommendation. Under R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), either party “may object to the report
and recommendation within seven business days after receiving the report and
recommendation by filing a written objection with the clerk and sending a copy to the other
party by certified mail, return receipt requested. * * * If either party timely objects, the other
party may file with the clerk a response within seven business days after receiving the
objection and send a copy of the response to the objecting party by certified mail, return
receipt requested. The court, within seven business days after the response to the
objection is filed, shall issue a final order that adopts, modifies, or rejects the report and
recommendation.”
       A. Rose’s written objections fail to comply with procedural requirements
under R.C. 2743.75(F)(2) and the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure.
       {¶9} Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), either party “may object to the report and
recommendation within seven business days after receiving the report and
recommendation by filing a written objection with the clerk and sending a copy to the other
party by certified mail, return receipt requested.” (Emphasis added.) Rose’s objections
are not accompanied by any proof of completed service. Rose thus has failed to comply
Case No. 2022-00548PQ                         -4-                        DECISION & ENTRY

with R.C. 2743.75(F)(2)’s procedural requirements for serving written objections by
certified mail, return receipt requested.
       {¶10} Under R.C. 2743.03(D), the Rules of Civil Procedure “shall govern practice
and procedure in all actions in the court of claims, except insofar as inconsistent with this
chapter.” Pursuant to Civ.R. 5(B)(4), a served document is required to be “accompanied
by a completed proof of service which shall state the date and manner of service,
specifically identify the division of Civ.R. 5(B)(2) by which the service was made and be
signed in accordance with Civ.R. 11.” According to Civ.R. 5(B)(4), “[d]ocuments filed with
the court shall not be considered until proof of service is endorsed thereon or separately
filed.” (Emphasis added.) R.C. 2743.75(F)(2)’s requirement that objections should be
served on a non-objecting party is consistent with Civ.R. 5(B)’s service requirements.
Therefore, under Civ.R. 5(B)(4) Rose’s objections should not be considered by the Court,
absent proof of completed service.
       {¶11} The Court recognizes that Rose is a self-represented litigant but, Rose
nonetheless is required to follow procedural law and court rules. The Tenth District Court
of Appeals has explained,
       While one has the right to represent himself or herself and one may proceed
       into litigation as a pro se litigant, the pro se litigant is to be treated the same
       as one trained in the law as far as the requirement to follow procedural law
       and the adherence to court rules. If the courts treat pro se litigants
       differently, the court begins to depart from its duty of impartiality and
       prejudices the handling of the case as it relates to other litigants represented
       by counsel.
Justice v. Lutheran Social Servs., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 92AP-1153, 1993 Ohio App.
LEXIS 2029, at *6 (Apr. 8, 1993). Accord State ex rel. Fuller v. Mengel, 100 Ohio St.3d
352, 2003-Ohio-6448, 800 N.E.2d 25, ¶ 10, quoting Sabouri v. Ohio Dept of Job & Family
Servs., 145 Ohio App. 3d 651, 654, 763 N.E.2d 1238 (2001) (“‘[i]t is well established
that pro se litigants are presumed to have knowledge of the law and legal procedures and
that they are held to the same standard as litigants who are represented by counsel’”).
The Court does not look favorably on Rose’s failure to follow procedural requirements
under R.C. 2743.75(F)(2) or the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure.
Case No. 2022-00548PQ                        -5-                       DECISION & ENTRY

       B. Rose’s objections fail to identify error with the Special Master’s findings
of fact, conclusions of law, or recommendation that Respondent failed to timely
produce public records to Rose.
       {¶12} R.C. 2743.75(F)(2) requires any objection to a report and recommendation
to be specific and state with particularity all grounds for the objection. R.C. 2743.75(F)(2).
In the objections, Rose appears to seek to demonstrate inconsistencies in Respondent’s
representations to the Court. Based on the Court’s review, however, Rose does not
identify any error with the Special Master’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, or the
recommendation that Respondent failed to produce requested public records to Rose
within a reasonable period of time.
       {¶13} The Court finds that Rose’s objections are not persuasive. Based on the
Court’s review, the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation is properly based on
the ordinary application of statutory law and case law as they existed at the time of the
filing of the Complaint.
   III. Conclusion
       {¶14} The Court OVERRULES Rose’s objections. The Court adopts the Special
Master’s Report and Recommendation.                In accordance with the Report and
Recommendation, the Court finds that Rose’s claim for production of records is moot.
The Court further finds that Respondent failed to produce the requested public records
within a reasonable period of time. Because Respondent has denied Rose access to
public records in violation of R.C. 149.43(B), Rose is entitled to recover from Respondent
the amount of the filing fee of twenty-five dollars and any other costs associated with the
action that are incurred by Rose, excepting attorney fees. Court costs are assessed to
Respondent. The Clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date
of entry upon the journal.
Case No. 2022-00548PQ          -6-                  DECISION & ENTRY

                               PATRICK E. SHEERAN
                               Judge

Filed December 13, 2022
Sent to S.C. Reporter 1/9/23