Conley v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 121818 OHCOC, 2017-00837JD

Docket Nº:2017-00837JD
Opinion Judge:PATRICK M. MCGRATH, JUDGE
Party Name:DOMINICK CONLEY Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION Defendant
Judge Panel:Gary Peterson, Magistrate
Case Date:December 18, 2018
Court:Court of Claims of Ohio
 
FREE EXCERPT

2018-Ohio-5452

DOMINICK CONLEY Plaintiff

v.

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION Defendant

No. 2017-00837JD

Court of Claims of Ohio

December 18, 2018

Sent to S.C. Reporter 1/14/19

Gary Peterson, Magistrate

ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

PATRICK M. MCGRATH, JUDGE

{¶1} On November 1, 2018, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 56(B). Plaintiff did not file a response.1 The motion is now before the court for a non-oral hearing pursuant to L.C.C.R. 4(D).

{¶2} Civ.R. 56(C) states, in part, as follows:

{¶3} "Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. No evidence or stipulation may be considered except as stated in this rule. A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from the evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence or stipulation, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the party's favor." See also Gilbert v. Summit Cty., 104 Ohio St.3d 660, 2004-Ohio-7108, citing Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (1977).

{¶4} According to the complaint, plaintiff is an inmate in the custody and control of defendant. The complaint goes on to provide that plaintiff injured his hand while using a machine to wax the floor. The complaint relates that plaintiff was evaluated by a medical doctor, presumably employed by defendant, and received x-rays of his injured hand. The complaint reports that the tendon in his finger is "broke" and that he no longer has feeling in his finger. Plaintiff alleges that the necessary treatment of his tendon is surgery, but despite this, defendant informed him that there is nothing that can be...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP