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

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Jackson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2004-Ohio-1090.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO ANTHONY JACKSON : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2003-12204-AD : MEMORANDUM DECISION DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS : Defendant ::::::::::::::::: {¶1} THE COURT FINDS THAT: {¶2} 1) On December 22, 2003, plaintiff, Anthony Jackson, filed a complaint against defendant, Mansfield Correctional Institution, alleging his watch and commissary purchases were lost by defendant s personnel. Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $72.80, the total replacement value of the lost property, plus $25.00 for filing fee reimbursement. Plaintiff submitted the filing fee with his complaint; {¶3} 2) On December 22, 2003, defendant filed an investigation report admitting liability. {¶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 $72.80, 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 $97.80, 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: Anthony Jackson, #A387-155 P.O. Box 788 Mansfield, Ohio 44901 Plaintiff, Pro se Margaret Bradshaw, Warden Mansfield Correctional Institution 1150 North Main Street Mansfield, Ohio 44901 For Defendant RDK/laa 2/20 Filed 2/25/04 Sent to S.C. reporter 3/10/04

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.