Cargile v. S. Ohio Correctional Inst.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Cargile v. S. Ohio Correctional Inst., 2005-Ohio-2041.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO WILLIAM E. CARGILE : Plaintiff : v. : : SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL INST. CASE NO. 2004-11023-AD MEMORANDUM DECISION : Defendant ::::::::::::::::: THE COURT FINDS THAT: {¶1} On February 10, 2005, this court issued an entry requiring plaintiff to submit either the $25 filing fee or a completed and signed cashier s statement from the institution in which plaintiff is an inmate; {¶2} On statement. February 22, 2005, plaintiff filed a cashier s A review of the statement reveals that plaintiff is indigent for the purposes of filing his complaint, Accordingly, the court has determined the validity of the original poverty statement and hereby waives payment of the filing fee; {¶3} Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, alleging defendant s resulted in the loss of his personal property. negligence Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $1,035.01; {¶4} On January 27, 2005, defendant filed an investigation report admitting liability for the loss of five cassette tapes, a watch, a necklace with cross, a pair of prescription glasses, a heavy t-shirt, two pairs of shorts, three wash cloths, three bath towels, a pair of headphones, a Walkman, a pair of Fila running Case No. 2004-11023-AD 2- shoes, and a velour blanket. MEMORANDUM DECISION Defendant asserts the damages for the above items, with the exception of the prescription glasses, should be limited to $250.00. Defendant agreement with this amount. contends plaintiff is in With respect to the prescription glasses, defendant states a new pair of glasses has been ordered and will be replaced at no cost to plaintiff; {¶5} On February 22, 2005, plaintiff filed a response to the investigation report expressing his agreement with the investigation report and its position with respect to damages. {¶6} On March 15, 2005, plaintiff sent a letter to the court via defendant wherein he again expresses his agreement with defendant s investigation report. THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT: {¶7} I find, by a preponderance of the evidence, negligence by defendant has been shown. Baisden v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1977), 76-0617-AD; Stewart v. Ohio National Guard (1979), 78-0342-AD; {¶8} The court finds defendant is liable to plaintiff in the amount of $250.00. Case No. 2004-11023-AD 2- MEMORANDUM DECISION IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO WILLIAM E. CARGILE Plaintiff : : v. : SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL INST. Defendant : CASE NO. 2004-11023-AD ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION : ::::::::::::::::: Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and, for the reasons set forth in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $250.00. Court costs are assessed against defendant. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. DANIEL R. BORCHERT Deputy Clerk Entry cc: William E. Cargile, #291-221 P.O. Box 788 Mansfield, Ohio 44901 Plaintiff, Pro se Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 1050 Freeway Drive North Columbus, Ohio 43229 DRB/laa 3/24 Filed 4/5/05 Sent to S.C. reporter 4/29/05 For Defendant
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
