COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 59670 : : MARYMOUNT HOSPITAL : : Plaintiff-Appellee : : -vs- : JOURNAL ENTRY : AND MARTIN POROZYNSKI : OPINION : Defendant-Appellant : : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: DECEMBER 19, 1991 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Garfield Heights Municipal Court Case No. 88 CVF 178 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant: BRUCE A. BLOCK, Esq. MARTIN POROZYNSKI, PRO SE Block, Rathbone & Soucie 9617 Brecksville Road 601 Rockwell Bldg., Suite 610 Brecksville, Ohio 44141 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 -2- J. F. CORRIGAN, P.J.: Appellant, Martin J. Porozynski, appeals from the order of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of appellee, Marymount Hospital. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. I. Appellee commenced this action on February 12, 1988, in the Garfield Heights Municipal Court seeking damages in the amount of $4,071.86, plus interest, based upon appellant's default on an account. Appellant answered on March 25, 1988, denying liability and stating that the hospital held him as a patient against his will and mistreated him. Appellee moved for summary judgment on January 26, 1990. Appellee's motion contained affidavits outlining the following: (1) the amount due; (2) appellant had been committed for treatment by the Cuyahoga County Probate Court; (3) appellant was not mistreated; and (4) the attorney general's investigation of appellant's complaints uncovered insufficient evidence to file criminal charges. Appellant responded to this motion for summary judgment by way of a memorandum. The memorandum contained no evidentiary material. The trial judge granted appellee's motion on March 7, 1990. This appeal timely follows. II. For his assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in granting appellee's motion for summary judgment. -3- Civ. R. 56(C) specifically provides that before summary judgment may be granted it must be determined that: "(1) No genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing such evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that conclusion is adverse to that party." Temple v. Wean United, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St. 2d 317, 327. Further, Civ. R. 56(E) provides that when responding to a properly made and supported motion for summary judgment: "(E) *** [A]n adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but his response, by affidavit or as otherwise pro- vided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him." Other documentary evidence permitted under Civ. R. 56 include the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, transcripts of evidence and written stipu- lations of fact. Civ. R. 56(C). Evidence which is not sworn, certified or put in evidence by way of affidavit does not satisfy the authenticity requirement of Civ. R. 56(E) and, therefore, cannot be considered by the trial court as documentary evidence for Civ. R. 56(C) purposes. Holt v. Kittrels (Jan. 21, 1988), Cuyahoga App. No. 53319, unreported. See, additionally, Citizens Ins. Co. v. Burkes (1978), 56 Ohio App. 2d 88, 96; Hickman v. Ford Motor Co. (1977), 52 Ohio App. 2d 327, 330. -4- Although a nonmoving party is entitled to a favorable con- struction of the evidence, where the nonmoving party has not provided countering affidavits, the moving party's affidavits are accepted as true. Lehere v. Gould Defense Systems (June 11, 1987), Cuyahoga App. No. 52294, unreported. See, additionally, Stemen v. Shibley (1982), 11 Ohio App. 3d 263, 268. Finally, as the burden is on the moving party to demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the lack of response by the opposing party cannot, of itself, mandate the granting of summary judgment. Morris v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. (1988), 35 Ohio St. 3d 454, 47. Appellee's motion for summary judgment contained affidavits outlining the amount appellant owed for the medical services provided, and that appellant had been committed to the hospital by the Cuyahoga County Probate Court. Further, appellee provided documentary evidence that appellant had not been mistreated while a patient at the hospital. Appellant failed to respond to the motion with affidavits or other evidence enumerated in Civ. R. 56. Appellant's unsworn memorandum contained no documentary evidence countering the evidence presented by appellee. Appellee's affidavits must, therefore, be accepted as true. Lehere, supra. Taking the affidavits attached to appellee's motion for summary judgment as true, we find that the trial court did not err in granting judgment in favor of appellee as a matter of -5- law. Appellant has failed to present evidence in defense of his position that he does not owe appellee $4,071.86 for medical services rendered. No genuine issue of material fact remains to be litigated. We therefore find that appellant's assignment of error is without merit. Judgment affirmed. -6- It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant their costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Garfield Heights Municipal 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. ANN McMANAMON, J., and JAMES D. SWEENEY, J., CONCUR. PRESIDING JUDGE JOHN F. CORRIGAN N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journaliza- tion, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .