Dale v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Dale v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 2004-Ohio-2754.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO DOUGLAS DALE : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 99-13703 Judge Fred J. Shoemaker Holly True Shaver, Magistrate : JUDGMENT ENTRY OHIO STATE HIGHWAY PATROL Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : {¶1} This case was tried to a magistrate of the court. On April 8, 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 a magistrate s decision within fourteen days of the filing of the decision ***. filed objections. Plaintiff timely Defendant has not filed a response. {¶3} In plaintiff s objections, plaintiff challenges several of the factual findings made by the magistrate in support of the recommendation. 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 submitted to the magistrate relevant to that fact or an affidavit of that evidence if a transcript is not available. *** {¶4} Plaintiff has not filed a transcript of the proceedings in this case in support of the objections as required by Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(c). Rather, plaintiff has filed two depositions taken in his criminal case in common pleas court and the transcript of proceedings in that case. Although the depositions and transcript were admitted into evidence in this case, they represent only a portion of the evidence in this case. {¶5} Absent a complete transcript of proceedings in this case, the court is unable to conduct an independent review of all 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. Moreover, the court notes that plaintiff s acquittal of the criminal charges satisfies just one of the elements of his claim of malicious prosecution. As the magistrate correctly stated in the decision, the presence of malice in instituting or continuing a criminal prosecution and the lack of probable cause are also required elements of plaintiff s claim. Mikes v. Kent State Univ. (Mar. 8, 1990), Franklin App. No. 89AP-749. The magistrate found that plaintiff failed to satisfy his burden of proof on these two elements and the court agrees with the magistrate. Inasmuch as plaintiff has the burden under Civ.R. 53 of providing the court with evidentiary support for his objections, plaintiff s objections 1-4 are OVERRULED. {¶6} Upon review of the record and the magistrate s decision, the court finds that the magistrate found the relevant facts, analyzed the issues, and applied the law to the facts. Therefore, plaintiff s remaining objections are OVERRULED and the court adopts the magistrate s decision and recommendation as its own, including {¶7} the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein. Judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. are assessed against plaintiff. Court costs The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. ________________________________ FRED J. SHOEMAKER Judge Entry cc: Douglas Dale 208 Bedford Avenue SW Canton, Ohio 44710 Plaintiff, Pro se John P. Reichley David M. Geiger Assistant Attorneys General 150 East Gay Street, 23rd Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 LP/cmd Filed May 25, 2004 To S.C. reporter May 28, 2004 Attorneys 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.
