State ex rel. Sailor v. McDonnell

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as State ex rel. Sailor v. McDonnell, 2009-Ohio-4378.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93507 S/O EX REL., RU-EL SAILOR RELATOR vs. HONORABLE NANCY McDONNELL RESPONDENT JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED WRIT OF PROCEDENDO MOTION NO. 423952 ORDER NO. 424298 RELEASE DATE: August 24, 2009 2 FOR RELATOR Ru-el Sailor, pro se Inmate No. A452-967 Mansfield Correctional Institution P.O. Box 788 Mansfield, Ohio 44901 ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor BY: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J.: {¶ 1} On June 22, 2009, relator Ru-El Sailor commenced this procedendo action against respondent Judge Nancy McDonnell to compel her to rule on his motion to have Judge McDonnell recuse herself from the matter involving State v. Sailor, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-435700, which was filed on February 15, 2009. On July 8, 2009, Judge McDonnell, through the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor s office, filed a motion for summary judgment. {¶ 2} In her motion for summary judgment, Judge McDonnell argues that the matter is moot. Attached to the motion for summary judgment is a copy of Judge McDonnell s order denying the motion. Thus, Sailor s request for a writ of 3 procedendo is moot. State ex rel. Gantt v. Coleman (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 5, 450 N.E.2d 1163; State ex rel. Jerningham v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 278, 658 N.E.2d 723. {¶ 3} Accordingly, we grant the motion for summary judgment. Costs to relator. It is further ordered that the clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and date of entry pursuant to Civ.R. 58(B). Writ denied. FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., JUDGE COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, A.J., and JAMES J. SWEENEY, J., CONCUR

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.