Will v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Will v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2006-Ohio-4347.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
www.cco.state.oh.us
RONALD WILL
:
Plaintiff
v.
:
DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION
AND CORRECTION
Defendant
:
:
CASE NO. 2005-06813
Judge J. Craig Wright
Magistrate Steven A. Larson
MAGISTRATE DECISION
:
:
:
:
:
{¶ 1} On
:
June
:
:
:
:
:
:
23,
2006,
conference with the parties.
the
court
conducted
a
pretrial
As a result of the conference, the
court learned that the parties are prepared for trial as scheduled
for July 24, 2006.
{¶ 2} On another matter, defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment on May 8, 2006.
2006.
Plaintiff filed a response on June 12,
Defendant filed a motion to strike plaintiff’s response as
untimely on June 16, 2006, and plaintiff filed a memorandum contra
and motion for extension of time on June 22, 2006.
Plaintiff’s
motion for leave to respond to defendant’s motion for summary
judgment is GRANTED instanter and defendant’s motion to strike is
hereby DENIED.
{¶ 3} Civ.R. 56(C) states, in part, as follows:
{¶ 4} “*** Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the
pleadings,
depositions,
admissions,
affidavits,
answers
to
transcripts
interrogatories,
of
evidence,
and
written
written
stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
Case No. 2005-06813
-2-
MAGISTRATE DECISION
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
No
evidence or stipulation may be considered except as stated in this
rule.
A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears
from the evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence or
stipulation, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion
and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion
for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to have the
evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the party’s
favor.
***”
See, also, Gilbert v. Summit County, 104 Ohio St.3d
660, 2004-Ohio-7108, citing, Temple v. Wean United, Inc. (1977), 50
Ohio St.2d 317.
{¶ 5} Plaintiff
defamation.
has
Upon
asserted
review,
and
claims
of
construing
conversion
the
evidence
and
in
plaintiff’s favor, genuine issues of material fact exist as to both
of
plaintiff’s
claims.
Accordingly,
it
is
recommended
that
defendant’s motion for summary judgment be denied.
____________________________________
STEVEN A. LARSON
Magistrate
Entry cc:
Ronald Will, #160-692
P.O. Box 740
London, Ohio 43140
Plaintiff, Pro se
Velda K. Hofacker Carr
Jana M. Brown
Assistant Attorneys General
150 East Gay Street, 23rd Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130
Attorneys for Defendant
MR/cmd
Filed June 29, 2006
To S.C. reporter August 22, 2006
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.
