Stubblefield v. Montgomery Cnty. Children Servs.

• Decision Date: 01 February 2022
• Docket Number: 2021-00390PQ
• Citation: 2022 Ohio 965
• Parties: PATRICIA STUBBLEFIELD Requester v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY CHILDREN SERVICES Respondent
• Court: Ohio Court of Claims

2022-Ohio-965

PATRICIA STUBBLEFIELD Requester v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY CHILDREN SERVICES Respondent

No. 2021-00390PQ

Court of Claims of Ohio

February 1, 2022

Sent to S.C. Reporter 3/25/22

DECISION AND ENTRY

Patrick E. Sheeran Judge

Requester Patricia Stubblefield-a self-represented litigant-objects to a Special Master's Report and Recommendation in this public-records case. Stubblefield's objections are not well taken for reasons set forth below.

I. Background

{¶1} On July 12, 2021, Stubblefield filed a Complaint against Respondent Montgomery County Children Services (MCCS). In the Complaint, Stubblefield states, "The original request for records was submitted on March 16th, 2021. Several follow-up inquiries were submitted. The records were finally released on April 29th, 2021. Several of the pages within the request have been redacted. I do not believe these pages have been redacted truthfully/legally. I would like for the concealed portion of my request to be un-redacted and released to me for review."

{¶2} The Court appointed a Special Master who referred the case for mediation. After mediation failed to successfully resolve all disputed issues between the parties, the case was returned to the docket of the Special Master. On December 21 2021, the Special Master issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R). The Special Master recommends (1) denying the claim for production of records and (2) assessing costs equally between the parties. (R&R, 8.)

{¶3} MCCS has not filed any timely written objections to the Report and Recommendation. Stubblefield filed untimely written objections to the Report and Recommendation on January 11, 2022. MCCS has not filed a timely reply to Stubblefield's objections.

II. Law and Analysis

{¶4} R.C. 2743.75(F)(2) governs the filing of objections to a report and recommendation issued under the special proceeding established in R.C. 2743.75. See generally Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 163 Ohio St.3d 337, 2020-Ohio-5371, 170 N.E.3d 768, ¶ 11 ("[t]he enactment of R.C. 2743.75 created an alternative means to resolve public-records dispute"). Under R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), either party "may object to the report and recommendation within seven business days after receiving the report and recommendation by filing a written objection with the clerk and sending a copy to the other party by certified mail, return receipt requested. * * * If either party timely objects, the other party may file with the clerk a response within seven business days after receiving the objection and send a copy of the response to the objecting party by certified mail, return receipt requested. The court, within seven business days after the response to the objection is filed, shall issue a final order that adopts, modifies, or rejects the report and recommendation."

{¶5} Stubblefield's objections are not well taken for several reasons.

{¶6} First, Stubblefield's objections are not accompanied by any proof of service. Stubblefield thus has not complied with R.C. 2743.75(F)(2) that requires objections to be sent to the other party by certified mail, return receipt requested. The Court is cognizant that Stubblefield is a self-represented litigant but, as the Tenth District Court of Appeals has explained,

While one has the right to represent himself or herself and one may proceed into litigation as a pro se litigant, the pro se litigant is to be treated the same as one trained in the law as far as the requirement to follow procedural law and the adherence to court rules. If the courts treat pro se litigants differently, the court begins to depart from its duty of impartiality and prejudices the handling of the case as it relates to other litigants represented by counsel.

Justice v. Lutheran Social Servs., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 92AP-1153, 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 2029, at *6 (Apr. 8, 1993). Accord State ex rel. Fuller v. Mengel, 100 Ohio St.3d 352, 2003-Ohio-6448, 800 N.E.2d 25, ¶ 10, quoting Sabouri v. Ohio Dept of Job & Family Servs., 145 Ohio App.3d 651, 654, 763 N.E.2d 1238 (2001) ("'[i]t is well established that pro se litigants are presumed to have knowledge of the law and legal procedures and that they are held to the same standard as litigants who are represented by counsel'").

{¶7} Second, the lack of proof of service fails to comply with Rule 5 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. See Civ.R. 5; see also 2743.03(D) (providing that the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure "shall govern practice and procedure in all actions in the court of claims, except insofar as inconsistent with this chapter"). Pursuant to Civ.R. 5(B)(4), "[documents filed with the court shall not be considered until proof of service is endorsed thereon or separately filed." Civ.R. 5(B)(4) is consistent with proof of service requirements contained in R.C. 2743.75(F)(2). Thus, under Civ.R. 5(B)(4), through R.C. 2743.03(D), the Court is prohibited from considering Stubblefield's objections until proof of service is endorsed on the objections or proof of service is separately filed.

{¶8} Third, Stubblefield's written objections are untimely under R.C. 2743.75(F)(2) and the Court is not required to consider them under the standard established by the General Assembly in R.C. 2743.75(F)(2). A review of the docket discloses that Stubblefield received a copy of the Report and Recommendation on December 24, 2021. R.C. 2743.75(F)(2) permits a party to object to a report and recommendation within seven business days after receiving the report and recommendation. See R.C. 2743.75(F)(2). Based on the Court's...