Rink v. Dept. of Rehab. and Corr. , 2018 Ohio 3633 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Rink v. Dept. of Rehab. and Corr., 2018-Ohio-3633.]
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
    TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    Stanley Rink,                                          :
    Plaintiff-Appellant,                  :
    No. 18AP-65
    v.                                                     :       (Ct. of Cl. No. 2017-00319-AD)
    Ohio Department of Rehabilitation                      :       (REGULAR CALENDAR)
    and Correction,
    :
    Defendant-Appellee.
    :
    D E C I S I O N
    Rendered on September 11, 2018
    On brief: Stanley Rink, pro se.
    APPEAL from the Court of Claims of Ohio
    SADLER, J.
    {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Stanley Rink, appeals from a judgment of the Court of
    Claims of Ohio confirming the administrative decision of November 3, 2017 in favor of
    defendant-appellee, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC"). For the
    reasons that follow, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
    I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    {¶ 2} On April 10, 2017, appellant, who is an inmate in the custody and control of
    ODRC, filed a complaint in the Court of Claims alleging ODRC lost or destroyed his
    personal property valued at $1,825. On November 3, 2017, a deputy clerk of the Court of
    Claims issued a memorandum decision in favor of ODRC. On November 13, 2017,
    appellant filed a motion, pursuant to R.C. 2743.10(D), seeking review by the Court of Claims
    of the deputy clerk's decision.
    No. 18AP-65                                                                               2
    {¶ 3} On December 22, 2017, the Court of Claims issued an "entry confirming
    administrative determination." Appellant has filed a notice of appeal to this court from the
    judgment of the Court of Claims.
    II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
    {¶ 4} Appellant assigns the following as trial court error:
    THE COURT OF CLAIMS ERRORED [sic] WHEN IT LOST
    ITS WAY WHILE REVIEWING THE STATED FACTS IN THE
    COMPLAINT AND RENDERED A DECISION RELYING ON
    PERJURED STATEMENTS IN AN INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
    THAT WAS IRRELEVANT TO THE ACTUAL ISSUE OF THE
    COMPLAINT DENYING THE PLAINTIFFS [sic] RIGHT TO
    DUE PROCESS IN ACCORDANCE TO THE SIXTH AND
    FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES
    CONSTITUTION.
    III. LEGAL ANALYSIS
    {¶ 5} R.C. 2743.10 requires the Court of Claims to determine certain civil actions
    administratively. Lewis v. State, 10th Dist. No. 77AP-827 (Apr. 11, 1978). R.C. 2743.10
    provides, in relevant part, as follows:
    (A) Civil actions against the state for ten thousand dollars or
    less shall be determined administratively by the clerk of the
    court of claims.
    ***
    (D) Upon the motion of a party, the court of claims shall
    review the determination of the clerk upon the clerk's report
    and papers filed in the action and shall enter judgment
    consistent with its findings. The judgment shall not be the
    subject of further appeal. No civil action arising out of the
    same transaction or set of facts may be commenced by the
    claimant in the court of claims.
    (Emphasis added.)
    {¶ 6} "Although R.C. 2743.20 provides generally for appeals from orders and
    judgments of the Court of Claims to this court, R.C. 2743.10(D) expressly provides that
    there shall be no such appeal to this court where the action has initially been determined
    administratively by the clerk of the Court of Claims." Maffeo v. Dept. of Agriculture, 10th
    Dist. No. 77AP-608 (Oct. 20, 1977). Accordingly, this court has consistently dismissed, due
    No. 18AP-65                                                                                  3
    to the lack of jurisdiction, any appeal taken from a Court of Claims judgment in a civil action
    determined administratively by the clerk of the Court of Claims. 
    Id. See also
    Lewis;
    Johnson v. Dept. of Corr., 10th Dist. No. 81-106 (Apr. 23, 1981); Lillie v. S. Ohio Corr.
    Facility, 10th Dist. No. 80AP-162 (Apr. 17, 1980); Hampton v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. &
    Corr., 10th Dist. No. 80AP-182 (June 10, 1980). Because appellant's civil action against the
    state was determined administratively by the clerk of the Court of Claims, this court does
    not have jurisdiction of appellant's appeal. Lewis; Johnson; Lillie; Hampton.
    {¶ 7} For the foregoing reasons, we sua sponte dismiss the appeal.
    Appeal dismissed.
    BROWN, P.J., and BRUNNER, J., concur.
    ________________
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18AP-65

Citation Numbers: 2018 Ohio 3633

Judges: Sadler

Filed Date: 9/11/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/11/2018