FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CV-2018-07-2921
MCCOY, PRO SE, APPELLANT.
STEPHEN J. CHUPARKOFF, ATTORNEY AT LAW, FOR APPELLEES.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
JENNIFER HENSAL JUDGE.
Morgan McCoy appeals a judgment of the Summit County Court of
Common Pleas that granted summary judgment to Michael Bullock
and Tarry House, Inc. on his negligence, breach of lease, and
harassment claims. For the following reasons, this Court
Mr. McCoy lives at an apartment complex operated by Tarry
House, Inc. Mr. Bullock is the director of the facility. On
May 5, 2018, the complex's property manager called the
police about a vehicle in the parking lot that is owned by
According to Mr. McCoy, because of the surveillance cameras
at the apartment complex and the amount of time he had lived
there, the property manager should have known that the
vehicle belonged to him. Even if the property manager did
not, Mr. McCoy believes that he should have inquired at each
of the eight apartments before calling anyone and should have
called a towing company about the vehicle instead of the
Following the incident, Mr. McCoy filed a complaint against
Mr. Bullock and Tarry House (collectively "Tarry
House"), alleging negligence, breach of the warranty of
habitability, and harassment. He alleged that the apartment
was infested by bedbugs, that it lacked hot water, and that
Tarry House allowed its employees and other tenants to harass
him because of his race. He also alleged that Tarry House had
not properly screened its employees and tenants for drug,
alcohol, or mental health issues. He later dismissed his
claims regarding the bathroom and bedbug conditions.
Following the close of discovery, Tarry House moved for
summary judgment on Mr. McCoy's remaining claims. Mr.
McCoy opposed the motion, but the trial court granted summary
judgment to Tarry House. Mr. McCoy has appealed, assigning as
error that the trial court incorrectly granted summary
judgment to Tarry House.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
APPELLANT'S BEING DENIED DISPOSITIVE MOTION AND/OR DENIED
TRIAL WITH APPELLEE'S BEING GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(APP. A-1) BY THE JUDGE IN THE MATTER NOW BEFORE THIS COURT
WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AS PER OR
UNDER ARTICLE IV SECTION 3 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
Mr. McCoy argues that the trial court should not have granted
summary judgment to Tarry House. Under Civil Rule 56(C),
summary judgment is appropriate if:
(1) [n]o genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be
litigated; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that
reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing
such evidence most strongly in favor of the party against
whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that conclusion
is adverse to that party.
Temple v. Wean United, Inc.,
50 Ohio St.2d 317, 327
(1977). To succeed on a motion for summary judgment, the
party moving for summary judgment must first be able to point
to evidentiary materials that demonstrate there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact, and that it is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Dresher v. Burt, 75
Ohio St.3d 280, 292 (1996). If the movant satisfies this
burden, the nonmoving party "must set forth specific
facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial."
Id. at 293, quoting Civ.R. 56(E). ...