State Ex Rel. Henderson v. Friedman, Unpublished Decision (6-16-2004)
State Ex Rel. Henderson v. Friedman, Unpublished Decision (6-16-2004)
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 2} Respondent judge has filed a motion for summary judgment attached to which is a copy of the docket in Case No. CR-415587. A more recent review of the docket reflects that respondent issued journal entries which were received for filing by the clerk on both March 31, 2004 and April 12, 2004 in which respondent overruled the motion for new trial and granted the motion for jail time credit. Henderson has also filed a motion for summary judgment in which he requests that this court "order the trial court to give judgment on his motion for new trial." Respondent argues that Henderson is not entitled to relief in mandamus because respondent has performed the act requested by Henderson. We agree.
{¶ 3} The complaint also manifests several defects.
{¶ 4} "* * * Additionally, relator `did not file an R.C.
{¶ 5} State ex rel. Bristow v. Sidoti (Dec. 1, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 78708, at 3-4. Likewise, in this action, Henderson has failed to support his complaint with the affidavit required by R.C.
{¶ 6} Henderson "also failed to include the address of the parties in the caption of the complaint as required by Civil Rule 10(A). This may also be grounds for dismissing the action.State ex rel. Sherrills v. State (2001),
{¶ 7} Accordingly, respondent's motion for summary judgment is granted and relator's motion for summary judgment is denied. Relator to pay costs. 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).
Writ denied.
Sweeney, P.J., concurs. Rocco, J., concurs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.