Jackson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Jackson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2004-Ohio3760.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO RODRIC JACKSON, SR. : Plaintiff : v. : : OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REH. AND CORR. CASE NO. 2004-03373-AD MEMORANDUM DECISION : Defendant ::::::::::::::::: {¶1} THE COURT FINDS THAT: {¶2} 1) On March 10, 2004, plaintiff, Rodric Jackson, Sr., filed a complaint against defendant, Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, alleging defendant s employees lost or destroyed his personal property. $152.50 for property Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of loss, plus $25.00 for filing fee reimbursement. {¶3} 2) On May 24, 2004, defendant filed an investigation report admitting liability and acknowledging plaintiff suffered damages in the amount of $152.50 for property loss; {¶4} 3) Plaintiff filed a response. {¶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. {¶7} 2) Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of $152.50, 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. {¶3} 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 $177.50, which includes the filing fee. costs are assessed against defendant. 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: Rodric Jackson, Sr., #349-434 P.O. Box 120 Lebanon, Ohio 45036 Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 1050 Freeway Drive North Columbus, Ohio 43229 RDK/laa 6/16 Filed 6/23/04 Sent to S.C. reporter 7/15/04 Plaintiff, Pro se For Defendant
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.
