Ohio Court of Claims, 2021

Langshaw v. N. Royalton

Ohio Court of Claims · Decided September 21, 2021 · Sheeran

2021 Ohio 3534

Opinion

[Cite as Langshaw v. N. Royalton, 2021-Ohio-3534.]

DANIEL R. LANGSHAW Case No. 2021-00070PQ

Requester Judge Patrick E. Sheeran v. JUDGMENT ENTRY

CITY OF NORTH ROYALTON

Respondent {¶1} On June 15, 2021, a Special Master issued a Report and Recommendation in this public-records case. The Special Master recommends a finding by the Court that Requester has not shown that Respondent violated R.C. 149.43(B) and an assessment of costs to Requester.

{¶2} Neither party has filed timely written objections to the Report and Recommendation, as permitted by R.C. 2743.75(F)(2).1 Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), if neither party timely objects to a special master’s report and recommendation, then this Court is required to “promptly issue a final order adopting the report and recommendation, unless it determines that there is an error of law or other defect evident on the face of the report and recommendation.”

{¶3} The Court determines that there is no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation of June 15, 2021. The Case No. 2021-00070PQ -2- ENTRY Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. Judgment is rendered in favor of Respondent. Court costs are assessed to Requester. The Clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.

PATRICK E. SHEERAN

Judge

Filed September 21, 2021 Sent to S.C. Reporter 10/1/21

1 Requester—a self-represented litigant—has failed to notify the Court of a change of address because a mailing from the Court, which contained a copy of the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation, was returned to the Court by the United States Postal Service with the following notation: “Return To Sender[,] Unclaimed[,] Unable To Forward.” (Docket Entry, 8/20/2021.) The Tenth District Court of Appeals has stated, “Ohio courts have held that pro se litigants have the same duty as counsel to keep the trial court apprised of a change of address.” Investors REIT One v. Fortman, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 00AP-195, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 6267, at *14 (Jan. 16, 2000). Here, Requester ostensibly has failed to fulfil his duty to keep the Court apprised of a change of address.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.