2022 Ohio 3559
Ohio Ct. Cl.2022Background
- Charles Tingler, a pro se requester, filed a public-records complaint alleging the Wyandot County Prosecutor’s Office possessed records related to former Prosecutor Jonathan Miller’s death.
- The court appointed a Special Master who sent the matter to mediation; mediation failed and the Special Master issued a Report & Recommendation (R&R).
- The Special Master found Tingler failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that any responsive records existed in the prosecutor’s keeping and recommended denying production and assessing costs against Tingler.
- Tingler filed objections and an unauthorized memorandum; his certificate of service showed he served objections by U.S. mail rather than certified mail as required by R.C. 2743.75(F)(2).
- Respondent filed a response but did not serve it by certified mail as required. Tingler’s objections accused the prosecutor of forging documents and sought orders directed to nonparties to produce records.
- The court found no reversible error in the R&R, concluded the Special Master correctly applied controlling law, overruled the objections, adopted the R&R, assessed costs to Tingler, and dismissed the prosecutor’s motion to dismiss as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did responsive records exist in respondent’s keeping? | Tingler contends records of the investigation into Miller’s death do exist and should be produced. | Respondent (via Special Master) contends requester failed to show any responsive records were in its custody when the request was made. | Held: Tingler failed to prove existence of responsive records by clear and convincing evidence; R&R adopted denying production. |
| Were service requirements of R.C. 2743.75(F)(2) satisfied? | Tingler served objections by U.S. mail (not certified); he did not comply with statute. | Respondent’s response was not served by certified mail as required either. | Held: Both filings contained procedural defects; statute requires certified mail return receipt. Court noted the irregularities but proceeded to review merits and adopt R&R. |
| Were Tingler’s objections sufficiently specific under R.C. 2743.75(F)(2)? | Tingler alleged forgery and false affidavit and requested court orders to nonparties, but did not identify specific errors in the R&R. | Respondent maintained R&R was correct and should be adopted. | Held: Objections were not specific or particularized to the R&R’s findings; court found no error and overruled objections. |
| Was the Special Master’s R&R properly adopted? | Tingler sought further relief and orders to nonparties; sought to defeat R&R. | Respondent asked the court to adopt the R&R and deny production. | Held: Court adopted the Special Master’s R&R, overruled Tingler’s objections, and assessed costs to Tingler. |
Key Cases Cited
- Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 163 Ohio St.3d 337 (2020) (recognizing R.C. 2743.75 as an alternative special proceeding to resolve public-records disputes)
- State ex rel. Fuller v. Mengel, 100 Ohio St.3d 352 (2003) (pro se litigants are held to the same procedural standards as represented parties)
- Sabouri v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 145 Ohio App.3d 651 (2001) (same principle that pro se litigants are presumed to know law and court procedures)