COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 74520 STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. : PETITION FOR WRIT OF MICHAEL RODGERS : MANDAMUS : Relator : MOTION NO. 99019 : vs. : JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION : SHIRLEY STRICKLAND SAFFOLD, : JUDGE : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO : : Respondent : : DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : OCTOBER 8, 1998 JUDGMENT : WRIT DISMISSED. APPEARANCES: For Relator : MICHAEL RODGERS, Pro Se No. 342-238 North Central Corr. Inst. P. O. Box 1812 Marion, Ohio 43301-1812 For Respondent : STEPHANIE TUBBS-JONES Cuyahoga County Prosecutor LISA REITZ WILLIAMSON, Assistant Justice Center, Courts Tower 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 -2- PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, A.J.: On May 18, 1998, the relator, Michael Rodgers, commenced this mandamus action against the respondent, Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold, to compel the judge to issue a journal entry specifying the number of days of jail credit to which he is entitled, which he maintains should be eighty-eight days. On June 17, 1998, the respondent, through the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, moved for summary judgment on the grounds of mootness. This motion recognized that the respondent had granted each of Mr. Rodgers' motions for jail time credit in the underlying case, State of Ohio v. Michael Rodgers, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No. CR- 342377. However, in granting these motions, the respondent did not specify the amount of jail time credit; rather, she ordered the sheriff to calculate the time and forward it to the institution. Because such entries do not fulfill a judge's duty to specify the amount of jail time credit, this court on July 21, 1998, denied the motion for summary judgment and invited the judge to submit another summary judgment motion establishing that she had fulfilled her duty. On August 17, 1998, the respondent, through the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, again moved for summary judgment on the grounds of mootness. The respondent submits that the entire matter is moot because Mr. Rodgers has completely served his sentence and been released from prison. Attached to the dispositive motion is correspondence, dated August 17, 1998, from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor -3- stating that Mr. Rodgers was released with an Expiration of Stated Term on May 29, 1998. (Capitalization in the original.) Mr. Rodgers never filed a response. For the following reasons, this court grants the motion for summary judgment and dismisses this mandamus action. First, Mr. Rodgers' release from prison renders the issue of jail time credit moot. In State v. Berger (1984), 17 Ohio App.3d 8, 477 N.E.2d 473, Mr. Berger served fifty-seven days in jail before his case came for trial. On that day he pleaded guilty to attempted breaking and entering. The trial judge sentenced him to six months imprisonment. Subsequently, Mr. Berger filed a motion for jail time credit. When the trial judge denied the motion, Mr. Berger appealed and assigned as error the denial of his motion for jail time credit. During the pendency of the appeal, Mr. Berger completed his sentence and was released. The appellate court ruled that the issue was moot. The length of time served, in and of itself, even though it exceeds the statutory maximum that might be imposed under the sentence, does not give rise to those types of adverse collateral consequences needed to avoid mootness. 17 Ohio App.3d at 9. See also, State ex rel. Michael Scott v. Judge Saffold(Jan. 18, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 69336, unreported - the relator's mandamus action [for jail time credit] is moot since the relator has completed his sentence of incarceration and was released ***. Pg. 2. Additionally, Mr. Rodgers's failure to prosecute this matter by filing a response to the motion for summary judgment renders his -4- case susceptible to dismissal. State ex rel. Mancini v. Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 486, 633 N.E.2d 1126; State ex rel. White v. Enright (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 481, 605 N.E.2d 44; State ex rel. Crow v. Baynes (1962), 173 Ohio St. 311, 181 N.E.2d 804; and State ex rel. Eglin v. Watzek (1961), 172 Ohio St. 199, 174 N.E.2d 261. Moreover, the relator failed to support his complaint with an affidavit specifying the details of the claim as required by Local Rule 8(B)(1). State ex rel. Simms v. Sutula (1988), 81 Ohio St.3d 110, 689 N.E.2d 564; State ex rel. Wilson v. Calabrese (Jan. 18, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70077, unreported and State ex rel. Smith v. McMonagle (July 17, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70899, unreported. Accordingly, the court grants the respondent's motion for summary judgment and dismisses this case. Costs assessed against relator. JAMES M. PORTER, J., CONCURS. .