Hawley v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., Unpublished Decision (1-30-2003)
Hawley v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., Unpublished Decision (1-30-2003)
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 2} Pursuant to Civ.R. 53, and Loc.R. 12(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, this matter was referred to a magistrate who issued a decision, including conclusions of law. (Attached as Appendix A.) The magistrate determined that relator's action should be dismissed sua sponte because relator failed to comply with the filing requirements set forth in R.C.
{¶ 3} Relator, a prisoner incarcerated in the Mansfield Correctional Institution, filed an objection to the magistrate's decision arguing that he complied with the statutory filing requirements. Relator's arguments are unpersuasive. It is clear relator failed to file the affidavits required by R.C.
{¶ 4} Following an independent review of this matter, we find that the magistrate has identified and applied the appropriate law. Therefore, we adopt the magistrate's decision as our own, including the conclusions of law contained therein. In accordance with the magistrate's decision, this action is dismissed sua sponte.
Objections overruled; action dismissed.
BRYANT and DESHLER, JJ., concur.
{¶ 6} Procedural History and Conclusions of Law:
{¶ 7} According to the complaint, relator is incarcerated in Ohio and seeks relief against a state entity. The magistrate recommends that the present action be dismissed sua sponte. Relator has not paid filing fees nor fulfilled the requirements in R.C.
{¶ 8} R.C.
{¶ 9} In regard to filing fees, R.C.
{¶ 10} Failure to comply with the statutory requirements is grounds for dismissal of the action. E.g., State ex rel. Washington v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1999),
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.