Court Opinion

ID: 9376514
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-02 20:06:02.095004+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:07.350405
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Morrison v. Starr, 2023-Ohio-425.]

                              IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

 JOSHUA MORRISON                              Case No. 2022-00481PQ

         Requester                            Judge Patrick E. Sheeran

         v.                                   JUDGMENT ENTRY

 MAYOR MATTHEW STARR

         Respondent

        {¶1} On December 9, 2022, a Special Master issued a Report and
Recommendation (R&R) in this public-records case. The Special Master recommends
denial of a motion to dismiss filed by Respondent. (R&R, 3.) Upon consideration of the
pleadings and attachments, the Special Master also
        recommends the court find requester’s claim for production of records 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, 4-5.)
        {¶2} Neither party has timely objected to the Report and Recommendation, as
permitted by R.C. 2743.75(F)(2). Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), if neither party timely
objects to a special master’s report and recommendation, then this Court is required to
“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.”
Case No. 2022-00481PQ                          -2-                                   ENTRY

         {¶3} Upon review, the Court determines 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.      In    accordance   with   the   Special   Master’s
recommendations and findings, the Court denies Respondent’s motion to dismiss, finds
that Requester’s claim for production of records is moot, and finds that Respondent failed
to produce requested public records within a reasonable period of time.             Because
Respondent denied Requester access to public records in violation of R.C. 149.43(B),
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.

                                               PATRICK E. SHEERAN
                                               Judge

Filed January 31, 2023
Sent to S.C. Reporter 2/14/23