Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ernest Hall v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

September 6, 2011

ERNEST HALL
PLAINTIFF
v.
SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL FACILITY DEFENDANT



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Joseph T. Clark

Cite as

Hall v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility,

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

Magistrate Matthew C. Rambo

ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

{¶1} On July 8, 2011, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 56(B). Plaintiff did not file a response. The motion is now before the court on a non-oral hearing pursuant to L.C.C.R. 4(D).

{¶2} Civ.R. 56(C) states, in part, as follows:

{¶3} "Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. No evidence or stipulation may be considered except as stated in this rule. A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from the evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence or stipulation, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the party's favor." See also Gilbert v. Summit Cty., 104 Ohio St.3d 660, 2004-Ohio-7108, citing Temple v. Wean United, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317.

{¶4} At all times relevant, plaintiff was an inmate in the custody and control of defendant pursuant to R.C. 5120.16. Plaintiff alleges that he took medication that made him "fall down" and that when he informed a nurse employed by defendant, she refused to allow fellow inmates to help him off the floor, and that he had to crawl into his cell. Defendant disputes plaintiff's allegations.

{¶5} In support of its motion, defendant filed the affidavit of Bertha Goodman, who states:

{¶6} "1. I am currently employed by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) as the Psychiatric Nurse Supervisor at [defendant].

{¶7} "2. I have personal knowledge, and I am competent to testify to the facts contained in this Affidavit.

{ΒΆ8} "3. As part of my job duties, I interact with inmates under custody and control of DRC. I am ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.