COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 69370 : STATE OF OHIO EX REL. : JAMES WALKER : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Relator : : and -vs- : : OPINION : HEINEN'S, INC. : MOTION NO. 66448 : Defendant-Respondent : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 OF DECISION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS JUDGMENT: DISMISSED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: __________________________ APPEARANCES: For Relator: For Respondent: JAMES WALKER, Pro Se CHRISTINE C. COVEY, ESQ. Reg. No. A-273-516 Duvin, Cahn, & Hutton Manci Corr. Inst. 1301 E. 9th Street P. O. Box 788 20th Floor Erieview Tower Mansfield, Ohio 44901 Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1886 -2- PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J.: Relator, James Walker, is seeking a writ of mandamus to compel respondent, Heinen's, Inc., to produce records pursuant to R.C. 149.43. Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, see Entry #65719 dated 8/22/95, and for the reasons that follow, we grant respondent's motion. A Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion may be granted if a complaint does not allege the existence of a legal duty of the respondent and the lack of an adequate remedy at law for the relator with sufficient particularity to put the respondent on notice of the substance of the claim(s) being asserted against it, and it does not appear that the relator might prove some set of facts entitling him or her to relief. State ex rel. Boggs v. Springfield Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 94, 647 N.E.2d 788. Relief in mandamus, as well as in other original actions, is extraordinary, State ex rel. Woodbury v. Spitler (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 134, 296 N.E.2d 526, and unsupported conclusions in a complaint will not be considered admitted when evaluating a complaint and will not be sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, State ex rel. Fain v. Summit Cty. Adult Probation Dept. (1995), 71 Ohio St.3d 658, 646 N.E.2d 1113. Relator herein has failed to allege the existence of any duty of the respondent to produce records pursuant to R.C. 149.43, the public records statute. R.C. 149.43 is applicable to records kept by any "public office." R.C. 149.43(A)(1). A "public office," for purposes of Chapter 149 of the Revised Code, "includes any state -3- agency, public institution, political subdivision, or any other organized body, office, agency, institution, or entity established by the laws of this state for the exercise of any function of government." R.C. 149.011(A). Relator has alleged no facts from which to surmise that respondent is a public office and, therefore, amenable to the public record laws. CF. State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. University of Toledo Foundation (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 258, 602 N.E.2d 1159 (private nonprofit corporation subject to R.C. 149.43). Consequently, the petition fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Moreover, relator has failed to support his complaint as required by Loc. App.R. 8(B)(1). This omission alone warrants dismissal. State ex rel. Horton v. Flanagan (Sept. 17, 1992), Cuyahoga App. No. 64334, unreported. Accordingly, respondent's motion to dismiss is granted. Case dismissed. Costs to relator. SPELLACY, P.J., and PORTER, J., CONCUR. PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON JUDGE .