Case Information
*1
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as
State
ex rel. Evans v. McGrath,
Slip Opinion No.
NOTICE
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.
S LIP PINION N O . 2017-O -8707 T HE TATE EX REL . VANS A PPELLANT
v.
M G RATH J UDGE A PPELLEE . [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it
may be cited as
State ex rel. Evans v. McGrath,
Slip Opinion No.
Mandamus and prohibition—Relator has adequate remedy in ordinary course of
law—Court of appeals’ dismissal of petition affirmed.
(No. 2016-1755—Submitted May 16, 2017—Decided November 29, 2017.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County,
No. 16AP-458,
________________
Per Curiam . We affirm the judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals
dismissing the petition of appellant, William H. Evans Jr., for writs of mandamus and prohibition. In 2015, Evans filed a complaint against the Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction (“DRC”) in the Court of Claims, alleging that DRC *2 UPREME OURT OF was negligent in providing medical care and treatment to him at Ross Correctional Institution. Appellee, Court of Claims Judge Patrick M. McGrath, presided over Evans’s case in that court.
{¶ 3} While his medical-malpractice case was pending, Evans filed a petition in the Tenth District for (1) a writ of mandamus to compel Judge McGrath to allow Evans to proceed with his lawsuit based on Evans’s alleged absolute right to pursue a civil action and (2) a writ of prohibition to prevent Judge McGrath from dismissing the lawsuit.
{¶ 4}
Evans’s petition was referred to a magistrate, who recommended
dismissal because Evans failed to file the certified cashier’s statement required
under R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). The court of appeals adopted the magistrate’s
recommendation to dismiss but stated different reasons for the dismissal. The court
held that Evans did not have a clear legal right in mandamus to compel Judge
McGrath to “disregard or ignore a statutory requirement placed upon plaintiffs in
medical claims by the Ohio legislature.”
DRC and dismissed Evans’s case under Civ.R. 41(B)(2) for Evans’s failure to present evidence to support his medical-malpractice claim. Evans v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr ., Ct. of Cl. No. 2015-00663. Evans’s appeal from Judge McGrath’s judgment dismissing his medical-malpractice suit is currently pending, as case No. 16AP-767, in the Tenth District. We affirm the court of appeals’ judgment. To be entitled to a writ of
mandamus, Evans must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the part of Judge McGrath to provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.
January Term, 2017
State ex rel. Tucker v. Matia
,
in this case can be raised in his appeal to the Tenth District from Judge McGrath’s
dismissal of his medical-malpractice suit. R.C. 2743.20. Evans is not entitled to a
writ of mandamus or prohibition, because “[a]n appeal is generally considered an
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law sufficient to preclude a writ.”
Shoop
v. State
,
to the Tenth District from Judge McGrath’s dismissal of his medical-malpractice case.
Judgment affirmed. O’C ONNOR , C.J., and O’D ONNELL K ENNEDY F RENCH O’N EILL , F ISCHER , and D W INE JJ., concur.
_________________
William H. Evans Jr., pro se.
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Bridget C. Coontz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
_________________