Baddour v. Rehab. Servs. Comm.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Baddour v. Rehab. Servs. Comm., 2004-Ohio-5440.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO ROBERT BADDOUR Plaintiff : v. : REHABILITATION SERVICES COMMISSION : CASE NO. 2002-04712 Judge Joseph T. Clark Holly True Shaver, Magistrate : JUDGMENT ENTRY : Defendant ::::::::::::::::: {¶ 1} This case was tried to a magistrate of the court. On July 12, 2004, the magistrate issued a decision recommending judgment for defendant. {¶ 2} Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(a) provides in relevant part: A party may file written objections to the magistrate s decision within 14 days of the filing of a decision ***. On July 27, 2004, plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate s decision. On August 10, 2004, defendant filed both a motion to strike plaintiff s objections for not being timely filed and a response to the objections. On August 23, 2004, plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to defendant s motion to strike. {¶ 3} Defendant argues that plaintiff filed his objections beyond the 14 days allotted by Civ.R. 53(E)(3). Upon review, the court finds that plaintiff s objections were filed one day late. However, in the interest of justice this court will consider plaintiff s objections. Therefore, defendant s August 10, 2004, motion to strike plaintiff s objections is DENIED. {¶ 4} Plaintiff failed to state with particularity the grounds of the objections as required by Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(b). However, the court is able to discern three basic objections from plaintiff s memorandum. The first two objections challenge factual findings made by the magistrate in support of the conclusions concerning plaintiff s claims. However, Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(c) reads, in pertinent part: *** Any objection to a finding of fact shall be supported by a transcript of all the evidence Case No. 2002-04712 -2- JUDGMENT ENTRY submitted to the magistrate relevant to that fact or an affidavit of that evidence if a transcript is not available. *** {¶ 5} Plaintiff has not filed a transcript of the proceedings in this case or an affidavit of that evidence in support of the objections as required by Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(c). Absent a transcript of proceedings in this case, the court is unable to conduct an independent review of the evidence in ruling upon the merits of plaintiff s objections. See State ex rel. Duncan v. Chippewa Twp. Trustees, 73 Ohio St.3d 728, 730 1995-Ohio-272; Wade v. Wade (1996), 113 Ohio App.3d 414, 418-419; Ohio Edison Co. v. Gilmore (1995), 106 Ohio App.3d 6, 10-11. Inasmuch as plaintiff has the burden under Civ.R. 53 of providing the court with evidentiary support for his objections, plaintiff s first two objections are OVERRULED. {¶ 6} In plaintiff s third objection, plaintiff alleges that the magistrate erred in concluding that plaintiff had asserted a claim for relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act and then holding that this court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff s claim. However, upon review of plaintiff s complaint and the magistrate s decision it is clear that plaintiff has asserted a claim based upon an unfair labor practice. Additionally, it has been held that the State Employment Relations Board has exclusive jurisdiction to hear unfair labor practice disputes against state employers pursuant to R.C. 4117. State ex rel. Fraternal Order of Police, Ohio Labor Council, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 76 Ohio St.3d 287, 1996-Ohio-424, citing Franklin Cty. Law Enforcement Assn. v. Fraternal Order of Police, Capital City Lodge No. 9 (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 167 at paragraph one of the syllabus. The court finds that the magistrate properly concluded that this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over unfair labor claims. Therefore, plaintiff s third objection is OVERRULED. {¶ 7} Upon review of the record and the magistrate s decision, the court finds that the magistrate determined the relevant facts, analyzed the issues, and applied the law to the facts. Therefore, the objections are OVERRULED and the court adopts the magistrate s decision and recommendation as its own, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein. Case No. 2002-04712 -3- JUDGMENT ENTRY Judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. ________________________________ JOSEPH T. CLARK Judge Entry cc: Howard V. Mishler Jeffrey R. Froude The Atrium Bldg., Suite 108 30400 Detroit Road Westlake, Ohio 44145-1855 Larry Y. Chan Lisa M. Eschbacher Assistant Attorneys General 150 East Gay Street, 23rd Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendant LM/LP/cmd Filed September 13, 2004/To S.C. reporter October 12, 2004
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.
