[Cite as Schmidt v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections-Poll Worker Dept., 2011-Ohio-5278.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 96578
JUDITH M. SCHMIDT
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
vs.
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS-POLL
WORKER DEPARTMENT
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Civil Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CV-743897
BEFORE: Rocco, J., Boyle, P.J., and Keough, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: October 13, 2011
2
FOR APPELLANT
Judith M. Schmidt, pro se
11114 Detroit Avenue - Apt. 101
Cleveland, Ohio 44102
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Reno J. Oradini, Jr.
Assistant County Prosecutor
th
8 Floor Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.:
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Judith M. Schmidt (“appellant”), appeals the trial court’s
dismissal of her complaint against defendant-appellee, the Cuyahoga County Board of
Elections Poll Worker Department (“appellee”). We affirm.
{¶ 2} On December 20, 2010, appellant filed a complaint against appellee
alleging malicious prosecution when appellee failed to hire her as a poll worker. On
January 19, 2011, appellee filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). The trial court granted
appellee’s motion and dismissed the case.
3
{¶ 3} Appellant now appeals and presents the following three assignments of
error for our review:
{¶ 4} “1. The Defendant’s Answer of my original Complaint and Judge
Brian Corrigan’s reason for dismissal seem to me as if they did not read my
Complaint.
{¶ 5} “2. As it was, I asked for a trial by jury before Judge Corrigan
dismissed by Case in Lower Court (US Constitution Amendment 7 and 11, etc.)
{¶ 6} “3. We had to have mediation before the Defendant seemed to know
any reason for my Complaint.”
{¶ 7} In her first assignment of error, appellant essentially argues that the trial
court erred in dismissing her complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). We disagree.
{¶ 8} A trial court must dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no
set of facts entitling him to recovery from the defendant. O’Brien v. Univ. Community
Tenant’s Union (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 327 N.E.2d 753. As a matter of law, the trial
court must accept all the allegations of the complaint as true. Greeley v. Miami Valley
Maintenance Contrs., Inc. (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 228, 551 N.E.2d 981. The allegations
must be examined to determine if they support any basis for recovery, even on legal
theories not specifically mentioned. Rogers v. Targot Telemarketing Serv. (1990), 70
Ohio App.3d 689, 591 N.E.2d 1332. However, plaintiff must set forth in his pleadings
4
the necessary elements of his claim against the defendants. See, e.g., Zuber v. Ohio
Dept. of Ins. (1986), 34 Ohio App.3d 42, 516 N.E.2d 244; Kordi v. Minot (1987), 40 Ohio
App.3d 1, 531 N.E.2d 318.
{¶ 9} The Ohio Supreme Court has set forth the elements of a cause of action for
malicious prosecution as follows: 1) malicious institution of prior proceedings against the
plaintiff by the defendant; 2) lack of probable cause for the filing of the prior lawsuit; 3)
termination of the prior proceedings in plaintiff’s favor; and, 4) seizure of the plaintiff’s
person or property during the course of the prior proceedings. Robb v. Chagrin Lagoons
Yacht Club, Inc., 75 Ohio St.3d 264, 1996-Ohio-189, 662 N.E.2d 9, syllabus.
{¶ 10} In her complaint, appellant alleged that the instructor did not adequately
prepare her for the poll workers’ examination. More specifically, appellant asserted that
the instructor lectured too rapidly, did not cover all the material, failed to adequately
answer questions, and distracted appellant. As a result, appellant maintains she was not
hired as a poll worker, wasted more than four hours of time, and was “defaced” [sic] in
front of others. None of appellant’s allegations, even if taken as true, establish any of
the elements needed to support a claim of malicious prosecution, or any other claim under
the law. Accordingly, the trial court properly dismissed appellant’s case. Appellant’s
first assignment of error is overruled.
5
{¶ 11} Having determined that the trial court appropriately dismissed the case
pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), we need not address appellant’s remaining two assignments
of error.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into
execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
______________________________
KENNETH A. ROCCO, JUDGE
MARY J. BOYLE, P.J., and
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR