State ex rel. Glass v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as State ex rel. Glass v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 2021-Ohio-527.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State ex rel. Timothy Glass, : Relator, : No. 20AP-195 v. : (REGULAR CALENDAR) Ohio Adult Parole Authority, : Respondent. : D E C I S I O N Rendered on February 25, 2021 Timothy Glass, pro se. Dave Yost, Attorney General, and George Horvath, for respondent. IN MANDAMUS ON REVIEW OF MAGISTRATE'S DECISION BEATTY BLUNT, J. {¶ 1} Relator, Timothy Glass, filed this original action requesting this court issue a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, Ohio Adult Parole Authority, to reverse its decision and vacate its sanction, which had determined that he violated the conditions of postrelease control and ordered him serve a sanction of 90 days incarceration. {¶ 2} Pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 13(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, this matter was referred to a magistrate of this court. The magistrate issued the appended decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, recommending this court deny relator's request for a writ of mandamus. {¶ 3} No objections have been filed to the magistrate's decision, and we have found no error of law or other defect on the face of the magistrate's decision. We further note that relator is no longer incarcerated for this post-release control violation. See 2 No. 20AP-195 https://appgateway.drc.ohio.gov/OffenderSearch/Search/DetailsPrint/A628622 (accessed February 24, 2021). {¶ 4} Therefore, we adopt the magistrate's decision as our own, including the findings of fact and the conclusions of law therein. In accordance with the magistrate's decision, we grant respondents' motion to dismiss relator's complaint for writ of mandamus. Motion to dismiss granted; Petition dismissed. KLATT and BROGAN, JJ., concur. BROGAN, J., retired, of the Second Appellate District, assigned to active duty under Section 6(C), Article IV, Ohio Constitution. 3 No. 20AP-195 APPENDIX IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State ex rel. Timothy Glass, : Relator, : v. : No. 20AP-195 Ohio Adult Parole Authority, : (REGULAR CALENDAR) Respondent. : MAGISTRATE'S DECISION Rendered on August 20, 2020 Timothy Glass, pro se. Dave Yost, Attorney General, and George Horvath, for respondent. IN MANDAMUS ON RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS {¶ 5} Relator, Timothy Glass, has filed this original action requesting that this court issue a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, the Ohio Adult Parole Authority ("OAPA"), to reverse its decision revoking his parole due to offenses committed while under parole supervision and to vacate the hearing officer's sanction. Findings of Fact: {¶ 6} 1. Relator is an inmate incarcerated at Noble Correctional Institution. 4 No. 20AP-195 {¶ 7} 2. On April 2, 2020, relator filed the instant mandamus action asking this court to order the OAPA to reverse its decision revoking his parole and vacate the hearing officer's sanction. {¶ 8} 3. At the time relator filed this mandamus action, he did not file an affidavit of prior actions as required by R.C. 2969.25(A). {¶ 9} 4. On May 4, 2020, respondent filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1) and/or (6) based upon relator's failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A). {¶ 10} 5. On May 6, 2020, relator filed a memorandum contra, claiming he was unaware of the requirements of R.C. 2969.25 and, due to his incarceration, lacked the resources to gain knowledge of the requirements of R.C. 2969.25. Conclusions of Law: {¶ 11} The magistrate recommends that this court grant respondent's motion to dismiss this action because relator has failed to comply with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25(A). {¶ 12} R.C. 2969.25(A) requires an inmate to file, at the time he commences a civil action against a governmental entity or employee, an affidavit listing each civil action or appeal of a civil action that he filed in the past five years, providing specific information regarding each civil action or appeal. {¶ 13} Compliance with the provisions of R.C. 2969.25 is mandatory and the failure to satisfy the statutory requirements is grounds for dismissal of the action. State ex rel. Washington v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 87 Ohio St.3d 258 (1999); State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd., 82 Ohio St.3d 421 (1998). {¶ 14} In the present action, relator has not filed the required affidavit regarding his other civil actions, if any, in violation of R.C. 2969.25. {¶ 15} Accordingly, it is the magistrate's decision that, based upon relator's failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25, this court should grant respondent's motion to dismiss relator's complaint for writ of mandamus. /S/ MAGISTRATE THOMAS W. SCHOLL III 5 No. 20AP-195 NOTICE TO THE PARTIES Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii) provides that a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court's adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party timely and specifically objects to that factual finding or legal conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).

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.