Donnie Reed v. Betty Jagnow, et al.

Summary

The Ohio Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of Donnie Reed’s defamation action against The Youngstown Vindicator and related defendants as barred by Ohio’s one-year statute of limitations. The court rejected arguments that a cease-and-desist letter, a prior federal lawsuit, or Reed’s imprisonment tolled or extended the limitations period. The court also addressed appellate briefing, waiver, objections to a magistrate’s decision, and the Ohio savings statute.

Holdings

1. A defamation action in Ohio is subject to a one-year statute of limitations running from the date of publication, and Reed's complaint conclusively showed that the action was filed more than one year after the alleged publications.
2. A complaint may be dismissed on a statute-of-limitations ground through a motion for judgment on the pleadings when the complaint conclusively establishes both the applicable limitations period and the absence of facts that would toll or avoid it.
3. A cease-and-desist letter does not toll the defamation statute of limitations or constitute an attempt to commence an action, and, outside the class-action exception, Ohio's savings statute does not apply when the original action was commenced in federal court.
4. Imprisonment does not toll the running of Ohio's statute of limitations under R.C. 2305.16.
5. The appeal was not subject to dismissal for an untimely brief because appellate briefs are deemed filed on the day of mailing and applicable mailing rules add three days to prescribed periods.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Reed's defamation action was barred on the face of the complaint by Ohio's one-year statute of limitations.
2. Whether a cease-and-desist letter could toll the statute of limitations or constitute an attempt to commence an action under Ohio's savings statute.
3. Whether a federal action dismissed without prejudice could invoke Ohio's savings statute for a later state-court action.
4. Whether Reed's imprisonment tolled the defamation statute of limitations under R.C. 2305.16.
5. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as untimely and whether the failure to object to the magistrate's decision limited appellate review.

Disposition

affirmed