Rose v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. and Corr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Rose v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. and Corr., 2004-Ohio-6581.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
STACY ROSE
Plaintiff
:
:
v.
CASE NO. 2002-06201
Judge Fred J. Shoemaker
:
Magistrate Steven A. Larson
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
:
REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION
:
Defendant
:::::::::::::::::
JUDGMENT ENTRY
{¶ 1} This case was tried to a magistrate of the court. On June 30, 2004, the magistrate issued
a decision recommending judgment for defendant.
{¶ 2} Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(a) states: “A party may file written objections to a magistrate’s decision
within fourteen days of the filing of the decision, regardless of whether the court has adopted the
decision pursuant to Civ.R. 53(E)(4)(c). ***” In this case plaintiff requested three extensions of
time to file his objections. Each of the extensions were granted and plaintiff timely filed his
objections on October 4, 2004. Defendant filed a response on November 1, 2004.
{¶ 3} Plaintiff filed the following objections to the magistrate’s decision:
{¶ 4} “1.) The Magistrate’s ruling that Plaintiff had the obligation to ensure Defendants
followed their procedures for circulating bottom bunk restrictions is contrary to law and inconsistent
with the accepted facts;
{¶ 5} “2.) The Magistrate’s ruling that Defendants were not aware of the accumulation of
water on the floor in the sixty year old building is contrary to the admission water did accumulate in
droplets on the walls, the fact no correctional officer who was consistently on duty in the dorm
refuted that water during rain storms accumulated on the floor and no follow up was made after
Skinner noted the condition caused by the condensation;
Case No. 2002-06201
-2-
JUDGMENT ENTRY
{¶ 6} “3.) The Magistrate’s Decision is inconsistent with the established fact Plaintiff had a
prior surgery and excluding water, exit from the top bunk as required easily caused this accident and
aggravated Plaintiff’s existing injuries;
{¶ 7} “4.) The Magistrate’s ruling imposing a duty on an inmate to enforce a doctor’s order
is inconsistent with prison conditions and restrictions as indicated by the reversal of the accusation
Plaintiff lied about having the restriction;
{¶ 8} “5.) The testimony of Sgt. Skinner and Inspector Scott do not refute constructive
notice, considering the testimony of Inmate Simmons and Plaintiff that the condition was open,
obvious and occurred frequently, Sgt. Skinner only having worked one shift and not having been
present during the incident and all weather conditions and the State having failed to call correctional
officers in charge of the dormitory on the various shifts who could refute Plaintiff’s testimony;
{¶ 9} “6.) The decision of the Magistrate is against the manifest weight of the evidence and
is contrary to law.”
{¶ 10} In plaintiff’s objections, plaintiff disagrees with several factual findings made by the
magistrate and the legal conclusions drawn therefrom. After reviewing the record, trial transcript,
admitted exhibits, and the magistrate’s decision, the court finds that the magistrate’s conclusion
regarding liability is supported by the greater weight of the evidence reviewed.
{¶ 11} Upon review of the record, the magistrate’s decision, and the objections, the court
finds that the magistrate correctly 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. 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.
________________________________
FRED J. SHOEMAKER
Case No. 2002-06201
-3Judge
Entry cc:
Richard F. Swope
6504 East Main Street
Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068-2268
Attorney for Plaintiff
Tracy M. Greuel
Assistant Attorney General
150 East Gay Street, 23rd Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130
Attorney for Defendant
LM/cmd
Filed November 22, 2004
To S.C. reporter December 6, 2004
JUDGMENT ENTRY
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.
