{¶ 2} Appellant is an inmate at SOCF. On March 31, 2004, the prosecuting attorney of Scioto County filed an application in that county's court of common pleas, seeking to dispose of unclaimed or forfeited property and/or contraband pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 3} On July 27, 2005, appellant filed a complaint in the Court of Claims, seeking monetary damages based upon SOCF's destruction of his personal property without notice. Specifically, appellant alleged tortious interference, civil conspiracy, and constitutional tort. On March 13, 2006, appellant filed a motion for partial summary judgment and/or declaratory judgment, which the court denied on June 7, 2006. On June 22, 2006, SOCF filed a motion for summary judgment, and, on July 21, 2006, appellant filed a motion for summary judgment. The motions were heard before a magistrate and, on October 6, 2006, the magistrate issued a decision recommending that appellant's motion for summary judgment be denied and SOCF's motion for summary judgment be granted. On October 10, 2006, appellant filed a motion for declaratory judgment. Appellant filed objections to the magistrate's decision on October 13, 2006. On December 8, 2006, the court issued a judgment denying appellant's motion for declaratory judgment and overruling his objections to the magistrate's decision. Appellant appeals the judgment of the trial court, asserting the following assignments of error:
[I.] Defendants Breach the Contract, pursuant to RC §
5120.50 , because plaintiff is a prisoner from another state, and is not serving an Ohio prison sentence, therefore, SOCF is bound to comply with the statutory provisions of RC §5120.50 , just as the ODRC must comply with the binding provisions therein.[II.] Defendants violate the Bailment, when SOCF's employees seized, forfeited, and destroyed the plaintiff's *3 lawfully acquired possessions, when plaintiff was in segregation confinement, and ODRC policy specifically stated, the inmate's property "shall be stored by the institution unless the inmate chooses to otherwise dispose of it."
[III.] Defendant's [sic] exceeded the scope of their authority in contravention to RC §
2933.41 , and their court order to destroy plaintiff's legitimately acquired property was void ab initio.[IV.] The trial court erred in failing to grant his summary judgment, and/or declaratory judgment, because defendants failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that plaintiff possessed "contraband" in violation of RC §
2933.41 , and in violation of RC §5120.50 .[V.] The trial court erred by failing to find that plaintiff has a right to reasonable notice of final appealable orders, and is a denial of plaintiff's right to legal redress of injuries under Moldovan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Welfare Dept. (Ohio 1986),
, 25 Ohio St. 3d 293 296 , and Robinson v. Hanrahan,, 409 U.S. 38 40 ,, 93 S.Ct. 30 31 (1972).
{¶ 4} Appellant argues in his assignments of error that the trial court erred in granting SOCF's motion for summary judgment. When reviewing a motion for summary judgment, courts must proceed cautiously and award summary judgment only when appropriate. Franks v. The LimaNews (1996),
{¶ 5} In his first assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred when it failed to find that SOCF is bound to comply with the statutory provisions of R.C.
{¶ 6} As appellant's second and fourth assignments of error are related, we will address them together. Appellant argues in his second assignment of error that the trial court erred in failing to find that SOCF violated its bailment duty and its duty of ordinary care with respect to the four boxes when it destroyed the property. Appellant argues in his *5 fourth assignment of error that SOCF failed to prove that the seized boxes were contraband. Initially, we note that the Court of Claims does not act as an appellate court, and appellant cannot collaterally attack the decision of the Scioto County Court of Common Pleas by claiming error by the trial court in his Court of Claims action. However, insofar as appellant's arguments herein might be read to constitute negligence or contract claims against SOCF, we will address them.
{¶ 7} The Court of Claims has addressed numerous cases involving inmates' property. SOCF does not have the liability of an insurer (i.e., is not liable without fault) with respect to inmate property, but it does have the duty to make reasonable attempts to protect such property. See Holmes v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. Corr. (1997),
{¶ 8} In the present case, appellant submitted a copy of an internal policy from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC"), to which appellant was subject. Section VI(A)(3) indicates that an inmate may possess up to 2.4 cubic feet of *6
combined state and personal property. Section VI(A)(5) provides that any property that exceeds the limits in (A)(3) is deemed "contraband" and "will be" disposed of in accordance with Ohio Adm. Code
{¶ 9} Appellant argues in his third assignment of error that SOCF exceeded the scope of its authority when it destroyed his property. Appellant maintains that SOCF was required to dispose of an inmate's property pursuant to the Ohio Administrative Code, not R.C.
{¶ 10} In the present case, notwithstanding that SOCF, acting through the local prosecuting attorney, cited R.C.
{¶ 11} Appellant argues in his fifth assignment of error that the Court of Claims erred when it failed to find that his constitutional right to due process was violated when he was not given notice of the forfeiture proceeding and forfeiture order. Apparently, appellant seeks damages as a result of these alleged constitutional violations. Initially, we note that, in In re Application for Forfeiture ofUnauthorized Items Confiscated from Inmates Pursuant to AR5120-9-55, supra, the inmate was given no notice of the forfeiture proceeding in the common pleas court, and the court did not hold a hearing. The court, in In re Application for Forfeiture of UnauthorizedItems Confiscated from Inmates *8
Pursuant to AR 5120-9-55, concluded that nothing in Ohio Adm. Code
{¶ 12} Accordingly, appellant's first, second, third, fourth, and fifth assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment of the Ohio Court of Claims is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
*1BRYANT and TYACK, JJ., concur.