Poindexter v. Ross Correctional Inst.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Poindexter v. Ross Correctional Inst., 2003-Ohio-5573.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO CURTIS POINDEXTER : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2003-08606-AD : MEMORANDUM DECISION ROSS CORRECTIONAL INST. Defendant : ::::::::::::::::: {¶1} THE COURT FINDS THAT: {¶2} 1) On August 4, 2003, plaintiff, Curtis Poindexter, filed a complaint against defendant, Ross Correctional Institute, alleging defendant s employees lost his property. Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $73.94 for property loss. Plaintiff submitted the filing fee with his complaint; {¶3} 2) On September 10, 2003, defendant filed an investigation report admitting liability and acknowledging plaintiff suffered damages in the amount of $73.94 for property loss. {¶4} THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT: {¶5} 1) 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; {¶6} 2) Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of $73.94, plus the $25.00 filing fee, which may be reimbursed as compensable damages pursuant to the holding in Bailey v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1990), 62 Ohio Misc. 2d 19. {¶7} 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 $98.94, which includes the filing fee. 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: Curtis Poindexter, #412-447 14169 S.R. 104 Chillicothe, Ohio 45601 Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 1050 Freeway Drive North Columbus, Ohio 43229 RDK/laa 9/23 Filed 10/2/03 Sent to S.C. reporter 10/21/03 Plaintiff, Pro se 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.