Opinion

Brock v. Niemeyer

  • 130 Ohio St. 3d 80
  • 2011 Ohio 4704
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Sep 21, 2011
Status
Published
On the bench
O'Connor, Pfeifer, Stratton, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, Brown
Cited by
2 cases
Authority
More cited than 60.4%

The opinion

[Cite as Brock v. Niemeyer, 130 Ohio St.3d 80, 2011-Ohio-4704.]

BROCK, APPELLANT, v. NIEMEYER, JUDGE, ET AL., APPELLEES.

[Cite as Brock v. Niemeyer, 130 Ohio St.3d 80, 2011-Ohio-4704.]

Complaints—Jurisdiction—Failure to invoke original or appellate jurisdiction of

court of appeals—Dismissal of complaint affirmed.

(No. 2011-0470—Submitted September 7, 2011—Decided September 21, 2011.)

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hancock County, No. 5-11-03.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment dismissing the complaint and denying the

motion of appellant, Dennis R. Brock, to allow his cause to proceed. Brock’s

complaint alleged violations of his civil rights pursuant to R.C. 2921.52(E).

Brock’s complaint invoked neither the original nor the appellate jurisdiction of

the court of appeals. Section 3(B)(1) and (2), Article IV, Ohio Constitution. We

also deny appellant’s motions for leave to correct and to direct the appellate court

to attach requested documents.

Judgment affirmed.

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL,

LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.

__________________

Dennis R. Brock, pro se.

______________________

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.