State ex rel. Mays v. McCormick

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as State ex rel. Mays v. McCormick, 2017-Ohio-7891.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 106009 STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. BRIAN MAYS RELATOR vs. JUDGE TIMOTHY MCCORMICK RESPONDENT JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED Writ of Procedendo Motion No. 509330 Order No. 510188 RELEASE DATE: September 27, 2017 FOR RELATOR Brian Mays, pro se 1254 Parkwood Drive Cleveland, Ohio 44108 ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT Michael C. O’Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.: {¶1} On July 18, 2017, the relator, Brian Mays, commenced this procedendo action against the respondent, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge Timothy McCormick, to compel him to rule on a motion to terminate postrelease control that he had filed in the underlying case, State v. Mays, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-02-424093-ZA. Respondent has moved for summary judgment on the grounds of mootness, which Mays has not opposed. {¶2} Attached to respondent’s motion is a certified copy of a journal entry, file-stamped July 26, 2017, granting defendant’s motion. The journal entry, therefore, establishes that the request for a writ of procedendo is moot. State ex rel. Bortoli v. Dinkelacker, 105 Ohio St.3d 133, 2005-Ohio-779, 823 N.E.2d 448, ¶ 3 (“A writ of procedendo will not issue to compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed.”); State ex rel. Jerningham v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 74 Ohio St.3d 278, 658 N.E.2d 723 (1996); State ex rel. Pettway v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98699, 2012-Ohio-5423. {¶3} Accordingly, this court grants the respondent’s motion for summary judgment and denies the writ. Costs assessed against relator; costs waived. The clerk is directed to serve upon the parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B). {¶4} Writ denied. EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, A.J., and FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., 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.