Case Title: State ex rel. Pallone v. Ohio Court of Claims

Citation: 2015-Ohio-2003

Docket Number: 2014-0663

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2015-05-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Pallone v. Ohio Court of Claims, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2003, 2015-
Ohio-2003.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2015-OHIO-2003 
THE STATE EX REL. PALLONE, APPELLANT, v. OHIO COURT OF CLAIMS, 
APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Pallone v. Ohio Court of Claims, Slip Opinion  
No. 2015-Ohio-2003.] 
Mandamus—App.R. 9(C)—Statement of facts—Civ.R. 53—Failure to follow 
procedures for objecting to a magistrate’s findings by providing a 
transcript—Court of appeals’ dismissal of petition affirmed. 
(No. 2014-0663—Submitted February 3, 2015—Decided May 27, 2015.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 14AP-196. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Roman Pallone, appeals the judgment of the Tenth 
District Court of Appeals dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus.  We 
affirm. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Background 
{¶ 2} Pallone sued the Ohio Department of Natural Resources for damages 
in the Ohio Court of Claims.  On January 30, 2013, after hearing the evidence, a 
magistrate recommended judgment in favor of the department. 
{¶ 3} Pallone filed objections to the factual findings in the magistrate’s 
report and recommendation, but his objections did not include a transcript or 
affidavit as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii).  On April 12, 2013, the Court of 
Claims overruled Pallone’s objections and entered judgment in favor of the 
department. 
{¶ 4} Pallone filed a notice of appeal to the Tenth District on May 10, 
2013.  On September 9, 2013, Pallone filed a proposed App.R. 9(C) statement of 
facts in the Court of Claims.  App.R. 9(C) provides that if a transcript of lower 
court proceedings is unavailable, an appellant may prepare a statement of the 
evidence “from the best available means, including the appellant’s recollection.”1   
{¶ 5} The Court of Claims rejected the proposed App.R. 9(C) statement on 
two occasions.  The first time, that court ruled that the statement was filed out of 
rule.  But on December 9, 2013, the Tenth District Court of Appeals granted 
Pallone’s motion to remand the case with instructions to “settle the App.R. 9(C) 
statement on the merits.”  The Court of Claims then issued an entry on January 
10, 2014, in which it rejected the App.R. 9(C) statement and, based on Pallone’s 
failure to comply with Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii), held that it was accepting the 
magistrate’s factual findings as the statement of the evidence. 
{¶ 6} Pallone filed a second motion to remand, arguing that Judge 
McGrath’s January 10, 2014 entry was improper under App.R. 9.  The court of 
appeals denied the motion, indicating that Pallone “may raise issues as to the trial 
                                                 
1 For purposes of App.R. 9(C), a transcript is “unavailable” if the appellant is indigent.  State ex 
rel. Motley v. Capers, 23 Ohio St.3d 56, 58, 491 N.E.2d 311 (1986).  The Court of Claims had 
previously accepted Pallone’s poverty affidavit only for the purpose of waiving the filing fee for 
the appeal. 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
court’s Statement in his assignments of error.”  In the same journal entry, the 
appellate court denied Pallone’s request for an extension of the January 31, 2014 
deadline for filing his merit brief. 
{¶ 7} Pallone failed to file a brief on or before January 31, 2014, and the 
court of appeals dismissed his appeal of the judgment in favor of the department. 
{¶ 8} Pallone then commenced this mandamus action against the court of 
claims to compel the court to settle and approve his App.R. 9(C) statement and 
transmit it to the Tenth District as a supplemental record.  The court of appeals 
dismissed the complaint, stating that “[b]y failing to file his brief in the appeal, 
[Pallone] has failed to exercise a plain and adequate remedy at law that bars this 
original action.” 
{¶ 9} Pallone timely appealed to this court, and the matter is fully briefed. 
Analysis 
{¶ 10} Mandamus will not issue to compel a vain act.  State ex rel. Julnes 
v. S. Euclid City Council, 130 Ohio St.3d 6, 2011-Ohio-4485, 955 N.E.2d 363,  
¶ 69.  In this case, a writ of mandamus to compel the court of claims to approve 
Pallone’s App.R. 9(C) statement would be a vain act. 
{¶ 11} If a party fails to follow the procedures set forth in Civ.R. 
53(D)(3)(b)(iii) for objecting to a magistrate’s findings by providing a transcript 
to the trial court when filing objections, that party waives any appeal as to those 
findings other than claims of plain error.  Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv).  The fact that the 
party later supplies a statement under App.R. 9(C) is of no consequence; the 
appellate court is still precluded from reviewing the factual findings.  Swartz v. 
Swartz, 9th Dist. Medina No. 11CA0057-M, 2011-Ohio-6685, ¶ 10.  In plain 
terms, the court of appeals cannot consider evidence that the trial court did not 
have when it made its decision.  Herbert v. Herbert, 12th Dist. Butler No. 
CA2011-07-132, 2012-Ohio-2147, ¶ 13-15. 
{¶ 12} In its present form, App.R. 9(C)(2) makes this result plain. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
 
In cases initially heard in the trial court by a magistrate, a 
party may use [an App.R. 9(C) statement] in lieu of a transcript if 
the error assigned on appeal relates solely to a legal conclusion.  If 
any part of the error assigned on appeal relates to a factual finding, 
the record on appeal shall include a transcript or affidavit 
previously filed with the court as set forth in Civ.R. 
53(D)(3)(b)(iii) * * *. 
 
As Pallone correctly notes, subsection (2) was added to App.R. 9(C) on July 1, 
2013, after he filed his proposed statement.  135 Ohio St.3d XCVII.  Pallone 
suggests the amendment should not apply retroactively to his case. 
{¶ 13} However, the Staff Note to the July 1, 2013 amendment to App.R. 
9(C) makes clear that the 2013 amendments codified existing case law. 
 
App.R. 9 is amended to clarify that a statement of the 
evidence or proceedings in lieu of an unavailable transcript (under 
App.R. 9(C)) * * * is available only in limited circumstances in 
cases originally heard by a magistrate. One of the predicates for 
appealing from a factual finding in cases initially heard by a 
magistrate is that the trial judge must have had an adequate 
opportunity to conduct a full review of the factual finding. That 
full review is not possible unless the appellant provided the trial 
court with an adequate description of the evidence presented to the 
magistrate—either through a transcript or, if a transcript is 
unavailable, an affidavit describing that evidence.  * * *  Case law 
already provides that an appellate court will not review factual 
findings on appeal unless the appellant provided the trial court with 
January Term, 2015 
 
5
that description of the evidence and that a statement under App.R. 
9(C) or App.R. 9(D) does not overcome this problem.  * * *  But 
appellants nevertheless continue to attempt to use such statements 
in these circumstances, suggesting a need for more explicit 
guidance in the rule. 
 
135 Ohio St.3d XCVIII.  Thus, even before the adoption of App.R. 9(C)(2), 
failure to file a transcript or affidavit with the objections to a magistrate’s findings 
of fact constituted a waiver of appeal of those findings. 
{¶ 14} In his briefs to this court, Pallone defends the timeliness of his 
App.R. 9(C) statement and criticizes what he considers are the trial court’s 
procedural errors.  However, he offers no response to the substantive legal 
question raised by the court of appeals: whether, having failed to comply with 
Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii), Pallone is even eligible to submit an App.R. 9(C) 
statement. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 15} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________________ 
Roman J. Pallone, pro se. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Renata Y. Staff, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
_________________________