State Ex Rel Spurlock v. Sevrey, 06ap-1291 (7-12-2007)
State Ex Rel Spurlock v. Sevrey, 06ap-1291 (7-12-2007)
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 2} The magistrate reviewed the file and noted that Mr. Spurlock had not complied with R.C.
{¶ 3} Mr. Spurlock has not filed objections to the magistrate's decision. No error of law or fact is present on the face of the magistrate's decision. We, therefore, adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the magistrate's decision and dismiss this case.
Case dismissed.
*Page 3BRYANT and BROWN, JJ., concur.
Findings of Fact:
{¶ 5} 1. On December 27, 2006, relator filed this original action against three SOCF employees.{¶ 6} 2. Respondent Dr. M. Sevrey is employed by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC") as the SOCF institutional physician.
{¶ 7} 3. Respondent Gay Adkins is employed by ODRC as the SOCF health care administrator.
{¶ 8} 4. Respondent Ms. Stoniker is employed by ODRC as an SOCF nurse.
{¶ 9} 5. According to the complaint, relator has been "urinating blood" since November 5, 2006. According to the complaint, relator has informed respondents of this problem since November 5, 2006.
{¶ 10} 6. According to the complaint, respondents have refused to treat relator for his medical problem.
{¶ 11} 7. For relief in this action, relator asks this court to issue a writ of mandamus that compels respondents to forfeit their respective licenses.
{¶ 12} 8. Relator has not paid the filing fees required for the filing of an original action. See Loc.R. 12(B).
{¶ 13} 9. At the time of the filing of his complaint, relator filed a document captioned "Affidavit of Indigency." However, this document is not in actuality an affidavit. The document is not notarized by a notary public or other officer authorized to perform a notarial act. See R.C.
{¶ 14} 10. Relator failed to file an R.C.
{¶ 15} 11. Relator has failed to file a statement setting forth the balance of his inmate account for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier.
{¶ 16} 12. Relator has not filed an affidavit stating that a grievance was filed and the date on which he received the institutional decision regarding the grievance.
{¶ 17} 13. On February 8, 2007, respondents filed a motion to dismiss this action.
{¶ 18} 14. Relator has not responded to the motion to dismiss.
Conclusions of Law:
{¶ 19} It is the magistrate's decision that this court grant respondents' motion to dismiss.{¶ 20} R.C.
{¶ 21} R.C.
{¶ 22} Under R.C.
{¶ 23} Relator has failed to comply with the requirements of R.C.
{¶ 24} Accordingly, it is the magistrate's decision that this court grant respondents' motion to dismiss. *Page 1
Reference
- Full Case Name
- State of Ohio Ex Rel. Daniel Spurlock, Relator v. M. Sevrey, Dr.
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published