Mehno v. DattilioMehno v. Dattilio
For Plaintiff-Appellant: Anthony Mehno, pro se #642-629 15802 State Route 104 North P.O. Box 5500 Chillicothe, Ohio 45601
For Defendant-Appellant: Atty. Andrew Beech Assistant Prosecutor Columbiana County Courthouse 105 South Market Street Lisbon, Ohio 44432
{¶1} Plaintiff-Appellant Anthony Mehno appeals the decision of Columbiana County Common Pleas Court granting Defendant-Aрpellee Anthony J. Dattilio‘s, Columbiana County Clerk of Courts,
Statement of the Case
{¶2} On August 3, 2015, Appellant, acting pro se, filed a complaint against Appellee in his individual and official capacity. Appellant contended that on February 27, 2015 he sent an “Affidavit of Accusation” pursuant to
{¶3} In lieu of filing an answer, Appellee, represented by the Columbiana County Prosecutor‘s Office, filed a
{¶4} The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. 9/2/15 J.E.
{¶5} Appellant, acting pro se, timely appealed the decision аnd raises two assignments of error. The assignments of error will be addressed together.
First and Second Assignments of Error
“The trial court denied Appellant due process and equal protection of the law under the 1st, 5th, and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitutions [sic] where it granted Appellee‘s motion to dismiss, and ruled that Appellant failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
“The trial court abused its discretion and acted with bias against Appellant when it ruled that Appellant had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and thus denied Appellant his due process rights under the 1st, 5th and 14th Amendments to thе U.S. Constitutions, [sic] as the trial court never provided its reasons for its legal findings which are required by law.”
{¶6} There appears to be two arguments raised in the assignments of error. Appellant asserts the trial court committed plain and prejudicial error when it failed to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law in its decision. He also argues the trial court erred when it determined he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Appellant claims Appellee had no discretion to forward the affidavit to the prosecuting attorney, but rather was required to file it and issue an arrest warrant. Each argument will be addressed in turn.
A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
{¶7}
{¶8} Furthermore, even if findings of fact and conclusions of law were requested,
{¶9} Specifically, as to ruling on a
{¶10} For both of the above reasons, Appellant‘s assertion that the trial court committed error when it failed to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law fails.
B. Civ.R. 12(B)(6) Dismissal
{¶11} A reviewing court conducts a de novo review of a trial сourt‘s decision on a
{¶12}
{¶13} Here, Appellant sent an “affidavit оf accusation” pursuant to
{¶15}
A private citizen having knowledge of the facts who seeks to cause an arrest or prosecution under this section may file an affidavit charging the offense committed with a reviewing official for the purpose оf review to determine if a complaint should be filed by the prosecuting attorney or attorney charged by law with the prosecution of offenses in the court or before the magistrate. A private citizen may file an affidavit charging the offense committed with the clerk of a court of record before or after the normal business hours of the reviewing officials if the clerk‘s office is opеn at those times. A clerk who receives an affidavit before or after the normal business hours of the reviewing officials shall forward it to a reviewing official when the reviewing official‘s normal business hours rеsume.
{¶16}
{¶17}
Upon the filing of an affidavit or complaint as provided by section 2935.09 of the Revised Code, if it charges the commission of a felony, such judge, clerk, or magistrate, unless he has reason to believе that it was not filed in good faith, or the claim is not meritorious, shall forthwith
issue a warrant for the arrest of the person charged in the affidavit, and directed to a peace officer; otherwise hе shall forthwith refer the matter to the prosecuting attorney or other attorney charged by law with prosecution for investigation prior to the issuance of warrant.
{¶18} As aforementioned, Appеllant asserted in the complaint that the affidavit alleged a felony was committed. Thus,
{¶19} Neither
{¶20} Furthermore, both of these sections indicate Appellee complied with his official duties by forwarding the “affidavit of accusation” to the prosecuting attorney. The prosecuting attorney is a reviewing official аs defined by
{¶21} Consequently, based on the above the trial court correctly determined Appellant was not entitled to relief under any possible theory because there was no breach of a duty.
{¶22} Both assignments of error are meritless. The trial court did not err by failing to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law; Appellant was not entitled to findings of fact and conclusions of law. Likewise, the trial court correctly granted the
Donofrio, P.J., concurs.
Waite, J., concurs.