Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth District, Scioto
LARRY W. BRADLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
T. KEVIN BLUME, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.
W. Bradley, Ross Correctional Institution, Chillicothe, Ohio,
pro se appellant.
P. Ruggiero, Ruggiero & Salyer, L.P.A., Portsmouth Ohio,
for appellees T. Kevin Blume and The Blume Law Firm.
Marshall, Jr., Portsmouth, Ohio, for appellees Sam Bradley
and Preston Walters.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
WILLIAM H. HARSHA, JUDGE
This is an appeal from consolidated cases granting summary
judgment to T. Kevin Blume, The Blume Law Firm, Sam Bradley,
and Preston Walters on Larry W. Bradley's civil actions
claiming that they conspired in guardianship and estate
proceedings to deprive him of his inheritance from his
Larry W. Bradley asserts that the trial court erred in
granting summary judgment to the defendants. We cannot
address the merits of his contentions because the trial
court's entries in the consolidated cases did not
constitute a final appealable order in that they did not
resolve Sam Bradley's counterclaim and did not make an
express determination of no just reason for delay. We dismiss
Larry W. Bradley "is currently incarcerated for a first
degree felony aggravated robbery conviction that occurred in
Scioto County, as well as a fourth degree felony receiving
stolen property conviction that occurred in Jackson County,
and * * * his scheduled date of release from prison is not
until November 25, 2018." Bradley v. Hooks, 4th
Dist. Ross No. 16CA3576, 2017-Ohio-4105, ¶ 3 and fn. 2
("Both trial courts and appellate courts can take
judicial notice of filings readily accessible from a
In December 2013, he filed three separate pro se complaints
in the Scioto County Court of Common Pleas against T. Kevin
Blume and The Blume Law Firm (Case No. 13CIH224), Sam Bradley
(Case No. 13CIH225), and Preston Walters (Case No. 13CIH227).
Although not entirely clear because of the rambling nature of
the complaints, it appears that Larry claimed in Case No.
13CIH224 that: (1) Blume and The Blume Law Firm conspired
with Sam Bradley to deprive him of his inheritance by filing
frivolous motions in the probate court without first giving
him the opportunity to consent; (2) Blume and The Blume Law
Firm conspired with the probate court because his objections
were never addressed by the court; (3) Blume and The Blume
Law Firm were guilty of conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C.
241; (4) Blume and The Blume Law Firm were guilty of
deprivation of rights under color of law in violation of 18
U.S.C. 242; and (5) Blume and The Blume Law Firm were guilty
of violating U.C.C. 2-301, misrepresentation, abuse of
estate, and embezzlement of estate property.
In Case No. 13CIH225, Larry alleged that: (1) Sam Bradley
fraudulently acquired access to the estate of Betty Bradley
to deprive him of his inheritance; and (2) Sam Bradley
embezzled $300, 000 worth of cash and property from him in
violation of the U.C.C, the U.P.C., and federal and state
In Case No. 13CIH227, Larry claimed that Preston Walters
conspired with The Blume Law Firm to deprive him of his
Although each complaint included a space for the allegations
to be notarized, they were not. The defendants answered by
denying Larry W. Bradley's claims, and Sam Bradley filed
a counterclaim against him.
The defendants filed motions for summary judgment, supported
by affidavits and exhibits. Larry W. Bradley filed a
memorandum in opposition, which did not include any
supporting summary-judgment evidence.
In Case No. 13CIH224, the trial court granted the
defendants' motions for summary judgment on Larry W.
Bradley's claims against them, but did not rule on Sam
Bradley's pending counterclaim and did not make an
express determination of no just ...