Dentigance v. Adult Parole Auth.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Dentigance v. Adult Parole Auth., 2008-Ohio-5724.] Court of Claims of Ohio The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Third Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 www.cco.state.oh.us WILLIE DENTIGANCE Plaintiff v. ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY Defendant [Cite as Dentigance v. Adult Parole Auth., 2008-Ohio-5724.] Case No. 2005-04373 Case No. 2005-04373 Judge J. Craig Wright Magistrate Lee Hogan JUDGMENT ENTRY -3- JUDGMENT ENTRY [Cite as Dentigance v. Adult Parole Auth., 2008-Ohio-5724.] {¶ 1} On July 23, 2008, the magistrate issued a decision recommending judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $6,113.25. {¶ 2} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) states, in part: A party may file written objections to a magistrate s decision within fourteen days of the filing of the decision, whether or not the court has adopted the decision during that fourteen-day period as permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i). On August 6, 2008, defendant filed objections. On August 21, 2008, plaintiff filed a response. {¶ 3} Plaintiff brought this action alleging false imprisonment. Defendant filed an admission of liability and the case proceeded to trial on the issue of damages. In the magistrate s decision, it is recommended that plaintiff be awarded compensation in the amount of $4,088.25 for 74 days of false imprisonment, $2,000 as compensation for mental distress, and reimbursement of the $25 filing fee. {¶ 4} Defendant objects as to the recommended awards for mental distress and reimbursement of the filing fee. In regard to the filing fee, defendant asserts that inasmuch as the court waived the filing fee in its April 29, 2005 entry, the award is not appropriate. The court agrees. Accordingly, the magistrate s decision is MODIFIED, pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(b), such that plaintiff shall not be awarded $25 for reimbursement of the filing fee. {¶ 5} Upon review of the record, the magistrate s decision and the objections, the court finds that the magistrate has properly determined the factual issues and appropriately applied the law. However, the court further finds that the award of damages shall be MODIFIED as set forth above. Therefore, the objections are SUSTAINED, in part, and OVERRULED, in part, and the court adopts the magistrate s decision and recommendation as its own, including findings of fact and conclusions of law as modified herein. {¶ 6} Judgment is rendered for plaintiff in the amount of $6,088.25. 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. _____________________________________ J. CRAIG WRIGHT Case No. 2005-04373 -5- JUDGMENT ENTRY Judge cc: Jana M. Brown Assistant Attorney General 150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 RCV/cmd Filed September 24, 2008 To S.C. reporter November 3, 2008 Willie Dentigance, #474-964 P.O. Box 8107 Mansfield, Ohio 44901
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.
