Court Opinion

ID: 9882997
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:23:01.122588+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:03:38.224263
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Staton v. Timberlake, 2023-Ohio-2322.]

                              IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

 MATTHEW STATON                                   Case No. 2023-00128PQ

         Requester                                Judge Lisa L. Sadler

         v.                                       JUDGMENT ENTRY

 VILLAGE OF TIMBERLAKE

         Respondent

        {¶1} In this public-records case, a Special Master has issued a Report and
Recommendation (R&R). The Special Master recommends that Requester’s filing of April
18, 2023, which is labeled “Motion in Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss or in
the Alternative Relief,” be treated as one to amend Requester’s complaint and that
Requester’s amendment be allowed. In support, the Special Master notes: “Although
[Requester] did not expressly state that he was seeking to amend his complaint,
[Requester’s] intent to add that new claim is clear.” (R&R, 3.) The Special Master further
notes that Respondent was provided with “an opportunity to address the propriety of
adding the claim, and [Respondent] did not object. The result is also supported by the
lack of prejudice; [Respondent] was given, and used, the opportunity to respond to the
claim on the merits. Finally, that result would be consistent with Civ. R. 15(A)’s direction
that amendments be freely allowed.” (R&R, 3.)
        {¶2} Additionally, the Special Master recommends the following:
        (1) Requester’s claim for production of certain unredacted police reports be denied
              as moot;
        (2) Requester’s claim that Respondent’s delay in producing the unredacted
        police reports violated R.C. 149.43(B)(1) be sustained;
        (3) Requester recover his filing fees and the costs of this case; and
        (4) Requester be denied the other relief he seeks.
(R&R, 7.)
Case No. 2023-00128PQ                        -2-                       JUDGMENT ENTRY

         {¶3} Neither Requester nor Respondent has filed timely written objections to the
Report and Recommendation in accordance with R.C. 2743.75(F)(2). Pursuant to R.C.
2743.75(F)(2), if neither party timely objects, then this Court “shall promptly issue a final
order adopting the report and recommendation, unless it determines that there is an error
of law or other defect evident on the face of the report and recommendation.” Upon
independent review, the Court finds that there is no error of law or other defect evident
on the face of the Report and Recommendation. The Court therefore adopts the Report
and Recommendation.
         {¶4} In accordance with the Special Master’s recommendations, Requester’s filing
of April 18, 2023, is construed as motion for leave to amend the Complaint. The Court
GRANTS Requester’s motion, as construed, and ACCEPTS Requester’s amendment.
The Court denies Requester’s claim for production of certain unredacted police reports
as moot, sustains Requester’s claim that Respondent’s delay in producing the unredacted
police reports violated R.C. 149.43(B)(1), and denies the other relief sought by Requester.
The Court ORDERS that Requester 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 Requester, 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.

                                           LISA L. SADLER
                                           Judge

Filed June 13, 2023
Sent to S.C. Reporter 7/7/23