Charles B. Lowery, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14AP-730
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
March 12, 2015
2015-Ohio-869
(Ct. of Cl. No 2014-00430) (REGULAR CALENDAR)
Rendered on March 12, 2015
Charles B. Lowery, pro se.
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Christopher L. Bagi, for appellee.
APPEAL from the Court of Claims of Ohio
LUPER SCHUSTER, J.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Charles B. Lowery, appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio granting the motion to dismiss of defendant-appellee, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC“). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} Lowery is an inmate in the custody and control of ODRC. On May 1, 2014, Lowery, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in the Court of Claims against ODRC. Lowery alleged that ODRC took “unauthorized possession” of his property, namely his name and race, for its own profit and commercial gain. (Complaint, 1.) Lowery claims that he was improperly classified as being African-American even though he is actually an
{¶ 3} The Court of Claims granted ODRC‘s motion to dismiss. Insofar as the complaint is construed to allege copyright infringement, the Court of Claims dismissed that claim without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court of Claims also dismissed the remainder of Lowery‘s complaint, upon finding that the complaint failed to state any claim upon which relief can be granted. Lowery timely appeals.
II. Assignments of Error
{¶ 4} Lowery presents the following assignments of error for our review:
- [1.] Court erred in it‘s Judgment of Dismissal contrary to “Civ.R. 12(B)(1);(B)(6)“.
- [2.] Court erred in it‘s “lack of subject-matter” finding.
- [3.] Court erred when it failed to conduct proper/valid investigation into Plaintiff‘s allegations against Defendant‘s.
- [4.] Court erred in ruling “it lacked jurisdiction“.
- [5.] Defendant‘s sought to “Conspire (18 U.S.C. 241)” against Plaintiff when it attempted to conceal it Knowledge of the “Commercial Violations” (Title 46 U.S.C.) in which Plaintiff has so accused it of.
- [6.] Court erred in it‘s judgment against the Theft and misuse of Plaintiffs’ property, to-wit; “Racial Heritage“.
(Emphasis sic. Sic passim.)
{¶ 5} Because Lowery‘s first, second, third, fourth, and sixth assignments of error are interrelated, we will address them together. Lowery generally asserts that the Court of Claims erred in granting ODRC‘s motion to dismiss pursuant to
{¶ 6}
{¶ 7} Under
{¶ 8} To the extent Lowery‘s complaint is construed to assert a claim for copyright infringement, the Court of Claims properly dismissed this claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. A claim of copyright infringement is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. See
{¶ 9} Aside from Lowery expressly asserting, on a document submitted with his complaint, that he seeks to advance a copyright claim, the precise nature of Lowery‘s claims against ODRC are unclear. Nonetheless, the gravamen of Lowery‘s complaint is that ODRC has engaged in the unauthorized use of his name and race, and has improperly designated his race. Lowery summarily alleges that ODRC‘s use of his name has resulted in damage to him in the amount of $5,000 for each occurrence. Lowery also asserts that ODRC‘s misclassification of his race resulted in him being assaulted by other inmates in 2008 and 2010, and that it caused him to receive less desirable work assignments with lower compensation rates.
{¶ 10} Lowery‘s claims relating to his name and race fail as a matter of law. First, Lowery fails to explain how ODRC committed a “theft” in relation to his name and race so as to entitle him to monetary relief under any cause of action cognizable in the Court of Claims. Second, Lowery‘s claim that ODRC is liable for injuries he sustained at the hands of other inmates, due to ODRC‘s alleged misclassification of his race, is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The applicable statute of limitations for claims brought
{¶ 11} In support of his position that the Court of Claims erred in dismissing his complaint, Lowery also argues that the Court of Claims’ review of his complaint was deficient. According to Lowery, the dismissal of his complaint was erroneous because the Court of Claims did not conduct the necessary and proper investigation into Lowery‘s allegations against ODRC. To the contrary, the decision of the Court of Claims granting ODRC‘s motion to dismiss correctly set forth the applicable standard for the court‘s review of the complaint and the allegations contained therein. Moreover, the decision of the Court of Claims reflects the careful review of Lowery‘s complaint, as well as the comprehensive effort to address each of Lowery‘s allegations despite Lowery‘s failure to clearly identify what causes of action he sought to advance.
{¶ 12} For these reasons, Lowery‘s first, second, third, fourth, and sixth assignments of error lack merit and are overruled.
{¶ 13} Lowery‘s fifth assignment of error asserts that ODRC conspired to deprive him of his rights by attempting to conceal its knowledge of the alleged commercial violation by ODRC. But this assignment of error does not allege any error by the Court of Claims. Assignments of error should designate specific rulings which the appellant wishes to challenge on appeal. Taylor v. Franklin Blvd. Nursing Home, Inc., 112 Ohio App.3d 27, 32 (8th Dist.1996); see
IV. Disposition
{¶ 14} For the foregoing reasons, the trial court did not err in granting ODRC‘s motion to dismiss. Having overruled Lowery‘s six assignments of error, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio.
Judgment affirmed.
TYACK and HORTON, JJ., concur.