Picone v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Picone v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2003-Ohio-7312.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO RUSSELL PICONE : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2003-11208-AD : MEMORANDUM DECISION DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION : Defendant ::::::::::::::::: {¶1} THE COURT FINDS THAT: {¶2} 1) On November 3, 2003, plaintiff, Russell Picone, filed a complaint against defendant, Department of Rehabilitation and Correction alleging defendant s negligence caused the loss of his personal property. Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $40.72, plus the $25.00 filing fee; {¶3} 2) On November 3, 2003, defendant filed an investigation report admitting liability and acknowledging plaintiff suffered damages in the amount of $40.72; {¶4} 3) On November 3, 2003, plaintiff submitted the filing fee. {¶5} THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT: {¶6} 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; {¶7} 2) Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of $40.72, plus the $25.00 filing fee, which may be reimbursed pursuant to the holding in Bailey v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1990), 62 Ohio Misc. 2d 19. {¶8} 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 $65.72, which includes the filing fee. Court costs shall be absorbed by the court. 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: Russell Picone, #358-724 1150 N. Main Street P.O. Box 788 Mansfield, Ohio 44903 Plaintiff, Pro se Margaret Bradshaw, Warden Mansfield Correctional Institution 1150 North Main Street Mansfield, Ohio 44903 For Defendant DRB/laa 12/10 Filed 12/17/03 Sent to S.C. reporter 1/9/04

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.