Bumphus v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Court of Claims of Ohio The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Third Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 www.cco.state.oh.us LARRY BUMPHUS Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION Defendant Case No. 2006-02412 Judge Joseph T. Clark Magistrate Steven A. Larson JUDGMENT ENTRY {¶1} On May 5, 2008, the magistrate issued a decision recommending judgment in favor of plaintiff on the issue of liability. {¶2} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) states, in part: A party may file written objections to a magistrate s decision within fourteen days of the filing of the decision, whether or not the court has adopted the decision during that fourteen-day period as permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i). Plaintiff timely filed objections. Defendant did not timely respond to plaintiff s objections. {¶3} Plaintiff objects to the magistrate s factual findings. Specifically, plaintiff contends that the magistrate s recollection of witness testimony is erroneous. Plaintiff also objects to the magistrate s recommendation that Sharon Berry is entitled to civil immunity. {¶4} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii) provides that [a]n objection to a factual finding * * * shall be supported by a transcript of all the evidence submitted to the magistrate relevant to that finding. Plaintiff has not filed a transcript to support his objections to the factual findings. Additionally, the magistrate s conclusion that Sharon Berry is entitled to civil immunity is both supported by the facts found by the magistrate and is in accordance with the law. {¶5} Upon review of the record, the magistrate s decision and the objections, the court finds that the magistrate has properly determined the factual issues and Case No. 2006-02412 -2- JUDGMENT ENTRY appropriately applied the law. Therefore, plaintiff s objections are OVERRULED and the court adopts the magistrate s decision and recommendation as its own, including findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein. Judgment is rendered for plaintiff on the issue of liability. Furthermore, the court finds that Pamela Shaw and Sharon Berry are entitled to immunity pursuant to R.C. 9.86 and 2743.02(F) and that the courts of common pleas do not have jurisdiction over any civil actions that may be filed against them based upon the allegations in this case. The case will be set for trial on the issue of damages. _____________________________________ JOSEPH T. CLARK Judge cc: Jana M. Brown Naomi H. Maletz Assistant Attorneys General 150 East Gay Street, 23rd Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 Magistrate Steven A. Larson 209 South High Street, Lobby Columbus, Ohio 43215 MR/cmd Filed June 23, 2008 To S.C. reporter July 22, 2008 Larry Bumphus, #452-269 Mansfield Correctional Institution P.O. Box 788 Mansfield, Ohio 44901
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
