In the case of Mentch v. Cleveland Heights Univ. Heights Library, 2020-Ohio-5592, the Court of Claims of Ohio held that an individual’s objections to the special master’s report and recommendations were unpersuasive when the objections addressed points not initially raised before the special master.
Mentch argued that the Cleveland Heights – University Heights Library wrongfully denied Mentch access to public records. When the special master’s report and recommendations found that the redacted documents were properly withheld, Mentch filed written objections. The Court found that Mentch’s objections were unpersuasive.
The Court of Claims stated that Mentch did not serve a copy of the written objections by certified mail with return receipt requested and her objections were therefore procedurally deficient under 2743.75(F)(2). Although, the Court still considered the objections in this case.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.