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.

Johnson v. Doer

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Stark

February 12, 2018

DUANE JOHNSON Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
WRONG DOER, ET AL. NANCY L. BAKER Defendants-Appellees

         Appeal from the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2017CV01930

          For Plaintiff-Appellant: DUANE JOHNSON, PRO SE

          For Defendants-Appellees: CHRISTOPHER A. TIPPING STARK & KNOLL CO., L.P.A.

          Hon. John W. Wise, P.J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.

          OPINION

          DELANEY, P.J.

         {¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Duane Johnson appeals from the "Sua Sponte Dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint" dated September 29, 2017 of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas. Defendant-appellee Nancy L. Baker is named in the complaint as one of a number of "wrongdoers."

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         {¶2} On September 22, 2017, appellant presented for filing a document entitled "Claim, " styled in the "Johnson Court" at the "Stark County Court House." The claim is labeled trespass and includes a demand for three million dollars. The "nature of claim" states, "Your Manger (sic) knew this man was anti-social and dangerous. I did not deserve this type of incident, an assault from patronizing your establishment, and I spent about a year in recovering from my injury."

         {¶3} On September 29, 2017, the trial court issued a sua sponte dismissal of the "claim" via judgment entry with prejudice and finding "that the subject filing is not actionable."

         {¶4} Appellant now appeals from the trial court's judgment entry of September 29, 2017.

         {¶5} Appellant has not raised any assignments of error per se. In his filing of December 28, 2017 entitled "Brief, " appellant argues he claims harm by the wrongdoers in this case and filed the action outside Summit County "to avoid any appearance of impropriety as the wrong doers harmed i by their actions or in-actions while acting as public servant in Summit County (sic throughout)."

         {¶6} This case comes to us on the accelerated calendar. App.R. 11.1 governs accelerated-calendar cases and states in pertinent part:

(E) Determination and judgment on appeal.
The appeal will be determined as provided by App.R. 11.1. It shall be sufficient compliance with App.R. 12(A) for the statement of the reason for the court's decision as to ...

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.