“In Ohio, truth is a complete defense to a claim for defamation”
How later courts described this case
- “In Ohio, truth is a complete defense to a claim for defamation”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
[Cite as Moore v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2025-Ohio-1249.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
ROBERT MOORE Case No. 2024-00030JD
Plaintiff Judge Lisa L. Sadler
Magistrate Gary Peterson
v.
DECISION
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION
Defendant
{¶1} On December 17, 2024, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
pursuant to Civ.R. 56(B), asserting that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law
because Plaintiff cannot prevail on his claim of defamation. Plaintiff did not file a
response. The Motion is now before the Court for review. For the reasons stated below,
Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.
Standard of Review
{¶2} Motions for summary judgment are reviewed under the standard set forth in
Civ.R. 56(C):
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
Case No. 2024-00030JD -2- DECISION
entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the
party’s favor.
“[T]he moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the trial court of the basis
for the motion, and identifying those portions of the record before the trial court which
demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of fact on a material element of the
nonmoving party’s claim.” Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St. 3d 280, 292 (1996). To meet this
initial burden, the moving party must be able to point to evidentiary materials of the type
listed in Civ.R. 56(C). Id. at 292-293.
{¶3} If the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving party bears a
reciprocal burden outlined in Civ.R. 56(E):
When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided
in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or
denials of the party’s pleadings, but the party’s response, by affidavit or as
otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue for trial. If the party does not so respond, summary
judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the party.
Background
{¶4} On January 19, 2024, Plaintiff, incarcerated person Robert Moore, filed a
Complaint wherein he asserts that, on August 17, 2023, he “received an erroneous
conduct report for a rule violation [he] did not commit and was found guilty without any
evidence to support the RIB finding,” and that he received two more conduct reports for
rule violations on July 16, 20231 and March 15, 2023 for “violation[s he] did not commit.”
(Complaint, 1-2.)
{¶5} On July 16, 2022, Plaintiff received a conduct report for a violation of Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) Rules 39 and 60, “[u]nauthorized
possession, manufacture, or consumption of drugs or any intoxicating substance” and
1 Defendant submitted an affidavit from Allan Szoke, Warden’s Administrative Assistant at the Ross
Correctional Institution, in which he states that Plaintiff did not receive a conduct report dated July 16, 2023,
but did receive a conduct report dated July 16, 2022. Defendant thus assumes that Plaintiff is referring to
the July 16, 2022 conduct report as a part of this complaint. The Court will likewise refer to the July 16,
2022 conduct report.
Case No. 2024-00030JD -3- DECISION
“[a]ttempting to commit; aiding another in the commission of; soliciting another to commit;
or entering into an agreement with another to commit any of the above acts.” (See
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Conduct Reports.) On March 15, 2023,
Plaintiff received another conduct report for a violation of ODRC Rule 39; and, on August
17, 2023, Plaintiff received a conduct report for violation of ODRC Rule 2.1, “[t]hreatening
bodily harm to another person.” (Id.) Following hearings regarding the conduct reports,
Plaintiff was found guilty of violating institutional rules in each instance. (See Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment, Hearing Officer’s Reports and Disposition of the Rules
Infraction Board.)
{¶6} Plaintiff alleges that “as a result [of the conduct reports and subsequent
hearings], [he] received sanctions which included up to six month commissary, JPAY,
visiting, Telephone restriction and loss property which included . . . commissary totaling
$35.58” and “GTL tablets and other property of clothing [sic], and was denied security
classification reduction from level 3 to level 2.” (Complaint, 2.) Plaintiff asserts that
“[t]hese acts by ODRC staff amounted to Defemation [sic] of character which caused
damage to my person, character, employment and chances for release early.” (Id.)
Law and Analysis
{¶7} In its Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s claim
for defamation fails because Plaintiff cannot establish that it published any defamatory
statements about him.
{¶8} “In Ohio, defamation occurs when a publication contains a false statement
‘made with some degree of fault, reflecting injuriously on a person’s reputation, or
exposing a person to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, shame or disgrace, or affecting a
person adversely in his or her trade, business or profession.’” Jackson v. Columbus,
2008-Ohio-1041, ¶ 9, quoting A & B-Abell Elevator Co., Inc. v. Columbus/Cent. Ohio Bldg.
& Constr. Trades Council, 1995-Ohio-66 ¶ 22. “To succeed on a defamation claim, a
plaintiff must establish: (1) a false statement, (2) about the plaintiff, (3) published without
privilege to a third party, (4) with fault of at least negligence on the part of the defendant,
and (5) the statement was either defamatory per se or caused special harm to the
plaintiff.” Watley v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2008-Ohio-3691, ¶ 26 (10th
Case No. 2024-00030JD -4- DECISION
Dist.). “‘Slander’ refers to spoken defamatory words, while ‘libel’ refers to written or
printed defamatory words.” Schmidt v. Northcoast Behavioral Healthcare, 2011-Ohio-
777, ¶ 8 (10th Dist.). Truth is a complete defense in an action against libel or slander.
R.C. 2739.02; see Ed Schory & Sons v. Francis, 1996-Ohio-194 (1996) (“In Ohio, truth is
a complete defense to a claim for defamation”).
{¶9} Defendant has put forth evidence that it did not publish any false statements
about Plaintiff. In support of its Motion, Defendant submitted a series of affidavits wherein
ODRC employees aver that they did not publish any false statements about Plaintiff and
that Plaintiff admitted to the allegations made in at least some of the conduct reports.
{¶10} First, Defendant submitted an affidavit from Trevor Leeth, a Corrections
Officer at the Ross Correctional Institution, in which he asserts:
6. On July 16, 2022, I completed a Conduct Report after [Plaintiff]
admitted to putting a sock filled with drugs into another incarcerated
person’s belongings while packing that person’s things up. Attached to this
as Exhibit A affidavit is a true and accurate copy of that Conduct Report.
7. In connection with authoring my July 16, 2022, Conduct Report, I
communicated only with necessary DRC staff as required by DRC policy.
Moreover, I did not speak with any non-DRC employees or any incarcerated
persons concerning these events.
8. I have never, to my knowledge, made any untrue statements, oral or
written, about [Plaintiff], and any statements I have made about [Plaintiff]
were made as part of my official duties and to maintain safety and security
for DRC.
{¶11} Defendant also submitted an affidavit from William Cokonougher, a Seargent
and member of the Rules Infraction Board at the Ross Correctional Institution, in which
he avers:
5. On or about July 22, 2022, the Rules Infraction Board (RIB) held a
hearing regarding a Conduct Report issued to [Plaintiff] on July 16, 2022.
At that hearing, [Plaintiff] pled guilty to violating Rule 60 and pled not guilty
to violating Rule 39 but was found guilty of violating both. Exhibit B,
attached, is a true and accurate copy of the records from that hearing.
Case No. 2024-00030JD -5- DECISION
6. On or about March 21, 2023, the RIB held a hearing regarding a
Conduct Report issued to [Plaintiff] on March 15, 2023. At that hearing,
[Plaintiff] pled guilty and was found guilty of violating Rule 39. Exhibit D,
attached, is a true and accurate copy of the records from that hearing.
7. Regarding the subject matter of the July 22, 2022, and March 21,
2023, hearings, I spoke or communicated only with [Plaintiff] and the
members of the RIB. Moreover, I did not speak with any non-DRC
employee or any other incarcerated persons concerning these events.
8. I have never, to my knowledge, made any untrue statements, oral or
written, about [Plaintiff] . . . .
{¶12} Gregory Payne, a Corrections Officer at the Ross Correctional Institution,
asserts:
6. On March 15, 2023, I completed a Conduct Report after observing
that [Plaintiff] was barely able to stand and seemed intoxicated. Attached
to this as Exhibit C affidavit is a true and accurate copy of that Conduct
Report.
7. In connection with authoring my March 15, 2023, Conduct Report, I
communicated only with necessary DRC staff as required by DRC policy.
Moreover, I did not speak with any non-DRC employees or any incarcerated
persons concerning these events.
8. I have never, to my knowledge, made any untrue statements, oral or
written, about [Plaintiff], and any statements I have made about [Plaintiff]
were made as part of my official duties and to maintain safety and security
for DRC.
{¶13} In an affidavit from Michael Mayes, a Seargent and member of the Rules
Infraction Board at the Ross Correctional Institution, he states:
5. On or about August 28, 2023 the Rules Infraction Board (RIB) held
a hearing regarding a Conduct Report issued to [Plaintiff] on August 23,
2023. At that hearing, [Plaintiff] pled not guilty but was found guilty of
violating Rule 2.1. Exhibit F, attached, is a true and accurate copy of the
records from that hearing.
Case No. 2024-00030JD -6- DECISION
6. Regarding the subject matter of the August 28, 2023, hearing, I
spoke or communicated only with [Plaintiff] and the members of the RIB.
Moreover, I did not speak with any non-DRC employee or any other
incarcerated persons concerning these events.
7. I have never, to my knowledge, made any untrue statements, oral or
written, about [Plaintiff], and any statements I have made about [Plaintiff]
were made as part of my official duties and to maintain safety and security
for ODRC.
{¶14} Defendant also submitted an affidavit from Eric Doughty, a Unit
Manager at the Ross Correctional Institution, in which he states:
6. On August 17, 2023, I completed a Conduct Report after conducting
an investigation into a threatening letter and concluding that [Plaintiff] was
the author. Attached to this as Exhibit E affidavit is a true and accurate copy
of that Conduct Report.
7. In connection with authoring my August 17, 2023, Conduct Report, I
communicated only with necessary DRC staff as required by DRC policy.
Moreover, I did not speak with any non-DRC employees or any incarcerated
persons concerning these events.
8. I have never, to my knowledge, made any untrue statements, oral or
written, about [Plaintiff], and any statements I have made about [Plaintiff]
were made as part of my official duties and to maintain safety and security
for DRC.
{¶15} Defendant has put forth evidence that it did not publish any false statements
regarding Plaintiff. Trevor Leeth and William Cokonougher aver in their affidavits that the
July 2022 conduct report does not contain any false statements. Leeth and Cokonougher
further aver that Plaintiff admitted to the allegations in the conduct report. Gregory Payne
and Cokonougher aver that the March 2023 conduct report does not contain any false
statements about Plaintiff. Michael Mayes and Eric Doughty aver in their affidavits that
the August 2023 conduct report does not contain any false statements about Plaintiff.
Case No. 2024-00030JD -7- DECISION
Accordingly, the evidence submitted by Defendant establishes that there were no false
statements made about Plaintiff by Defendant in the conduct reports identified by Plaintiff.
{¶16} Thus, Defendant met its initial burden of identifying evidence in the record
that demonstrates an absence of a genuine issue of material fact—that no false
statements were made about Plaintiff. Plaintiff was obligated to respond with specific
evidence demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact. Civ.R. 56(E). Plaintiff did not
file a response, and the evidence submitted by Defendant is thus uncontradicted.
{¶17} As truth is a total defense to a claim for defamation, and the undisputed
evidence presented demonstrates that none of the conduct reports identified in Plaintiff’s
complaint contains false statements, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that a false statement
was made by Defendant. Thus, Plaintiff’s claim for defamation fails. Accordingly,
Defendant is entitled to judgment on Plaintiff’s claim for defamation.
Conclusion
{¶18} Based upon the foregoing, the Court concludes that there are no genuine
issues of material fact and that Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment shall be granted, and judgment
shall be rendered in favor of Defendant.
LISA L. SADLER
Judge
[Cite as Moore v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2025-Ohio-1249.]
ROBERT MOORE Case No. 2024-00030JD
Plaintiff Judge Lisa L. Sadler
Magistrate Gary Peterson
v.
JUDGMENT ENTRY
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
{¶19} A non-oral hearing was conducted in this case upon Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth in the decision filed concurrently herewith,
the Court concludes that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that Defendant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. As a result, Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment is GRANTED, and judgment is rendered in favor of Defendant. All previously
scheduled events are VACATED. Court costs are assessed against Plaintiff. The clerk
shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.
LISA L. SADLER
Judge
Filed March 7, 2025
Sent to S.C. Reporter 4/10/25