Harwell v. Grafton Corr. Inst.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Harwell v. Grafton Corr. Inst., 2004-Ohio-4720.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO EARNEST HARWELL : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2003-04961 Judge J. Warren Bettis Magistrate Steven A. Larson : JUDGMENT ENTRY GRAFTON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : {¶1} This case was tried to a magistrate of the court. On May 11, 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). *** Plaintiff timely filed his objections. Additionally, this court granted plaintiff leave to file an affidavit of evidence. {¶3} Plaintiff filed three objections to the magistrate s decision: {¶4} 1.) The Magistrate s recommendation and findings are not supported by the evidence; {¶5} 2.) The Magistrate s recommendation and findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence; {¶6} 3.) The Magistrate improperly found the injuries were self inflicted without any medical testimony. {¶7} Ultimately, plaintiff s first two objections are arguing that the magistrate s decision was against the weight of the evidence. After reviewing the record, affidavit of evidence, exhibits, and the magistrate s decision, the court finds that the magistrate s conclusions regarding liability are supported by the greater weight of the evidence. {¶8} Plaintiff s third objection to the magistrate s decision is unfounded. Upon review of the decision, the court finds that while the magistrate cited testimony of a corrections officer (CO) Case No. 2003-04961 -2- JUDGMENT ENTRY concerning plaintiff s injuries, the magistrate found only that plaintiff failed to prove that excessive tightness of the cuffs caused any injuries. The magistrate did not specifically find that plaintiff s injuries were self-inflicted. Additionally, the magistrate s finding is supported by the CO s testimony which was properly admitted over plaintiff s objection. Ohio Evid.R. 701 states that lay witnesses are allowed to give opinion testimony. The staff note clarifies the rule and states: A prime example is that of the non-expert witness testifying as to physical condition. In the case at hand, the CO testified as to plaintiff s physical condition. Therefore, plaintiff s third objection is OVERRULED. {¶9} 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. ________________________________ J. WARREN BETTIS Judge Entry cc: Richard F. Swope 6504 East Main Street Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068-2268 Attorney for Plaintiff Peggy W. Corn Assistant Attorney General 150 East Gay Street, 23rd Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 Attorney for Defendant LM/cmd Filed September 2, 2004 To S.C. reporter September 7, 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.
