Haynes v. Bexley Police Dept.
Syllabus
After neither party timely objected to a Special Master's Report and Recommendation, the Court determined that there was no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the Report and Recommendation. The Court adopted the Report and Recommendation. In accordance with the Report and Recommendation, the Court denied Respondent's motion to dismiss the Court found that Requester's claim for production of records was moot and the Court found that Respondent failed to produce records within a reasonable period of time. Because Respondent denied Requester access to public records in violation of R.C. 149.43(B), the Court determined that Requester was 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 the Requester, excepting attorney fees.
Full Opinion (html_with_citations)
[Cite as Haynes v. Bexley Police Dept.,2022-Ohio-4828
.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
RICHARD R. HAYNES Case No. 2022-00572PQ
Requester Judge Patrick E. Sheeran
v. JUDGMENT ENTRY
BEXLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT
Respondent
{¶1} On December 13, 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, 2.) The Special Master states:
Upon consideration of the pleadings and attachments the Special
Master recommends the court find that requester’s claim for production of
records is moot. The Special Master further recommends the court find that
respondent failed to produce the 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, 6.)
{¶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. 2022-00572PQ -2- JUDGMENT 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 adopts the Report
and Recommendation. In accordance with the Special Master’s Report and
Recommendation, the Court denies Respondent’s motion to dismiss; the Court finds that
Requester’s claim for production of records is moot; and the Court finds that Respondent
failed to produce 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 the 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 December 29, 2022
Sent to S.C. Reporter 1/9/23