- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Fankhauser v. Bucyrus Police Dept.
[Cite as Fankhauser v. Bucyrus Police Dept., 2026-Ohio-3402.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
KURT FANKHAUSER
Requester
v.
BUCYRUS POLICE DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Case No. 2026-00110PQ Judge Lisa L. Sadler
JUDGMENT ENTRY
{¶1} In this public-records case, a special master has issued a report and recommendation. The special master recommends that the court:
1) Deny respondent's motion to dismiss;
2) Grant judgment for requester on his claim that respondent overcharged for production of body-worn camera footage pursuant to R.C. 149.43(B)(1);
3) Order respondent to reimburse requester for his filing fee; and
4) Order respondent to bear the costs of this case.
{¶2} Neither requester nor respondent has filed timely written objections to the report and recommendation in accordance with R.C. 2743.75(F)(2). Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), if neither party timely objects, then this court "shall promptly issue a final order adopting the report and recommendation, unless it determines that there is an error of law or other defect evident on the face of the report and recommendation." Upon independent review, the court finds that there is no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the report and recommendation.
{¶3} Specifically, the court notes that the special master recommended that this court grant judgment for requestor on his claim that respondent overcharged for production of body-worn camera footage pursuant to R.C. 149.43(B)(1) but did not order respondent to reimburse requestor the amount overcharged. Upon review, of all relevant statues, the court agrees with the special master's recommendation to find a violation of R.C. 149.43(B)(1) but not order respondent to reimburse requestor. R.C.
1
Case No. 2026-00110PQ -2- JUDGMENT ENTRY 2743.75(F)(3)(b) states that "[t]he aggrieved person shall be entitled to recover from the public office or person responsible for the public records the amount of the filing fee of twenty-five dollars and any other costs associated with the action that are incurred by the aggrieved person". As noted in the report and recommendation, "[o]n January 15, 2026, the Police Department invoiced Requester $701.21 for the body-worn camera footage he requested. Requester paid the next day." Report and recommendation, dated May 29, 2026, p. 1 (internal citations omitted). As the costs associated with the overcharge occurred prior to the present action, they are not recoverable in this court as they are not costs associated with this action as contemplated by the statutes.
{¶4} Accordingly, the court adopts the report and recommendation.
{¶5} In accordance with the special master's recommendations, the court:
1) Denies respondent's motion to dismiss;
2) Grants judgment for requester on his claim that respondent overcharged for production of body-worn camera footage pursuant to R.C. 149.43(B)(1);
3) Orders respondent to reimburse requester for his filing fee; and
4) Orders respondent to bear the costs of this case.
{¶6} The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.
LISA L. SADLER
Judge
Filed July 7, 2026 Sent to S.C. Reporter 8/31/26
2
Alert