Case Title: State ex rel. Maroon v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol Retirement Sys.

Citation: 2012-Ohio-2679

Docket Number: 2011-1355

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-06-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Maroon v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol Retirement Sys., Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-
2679.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-2679 
THE STATE EX REL. MAROON, APPELLANT, v. OHIO STATE HIGHWAY PATROL 
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Maroon v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol Retirement Sys., 
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-2679.] 
Court of appeals’ judgment denying writ of mandamus affirmed. 
(No. 2011-1355—Submitted June 6, 2012—Decided June 20, 2012.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 10AP-665. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the request 
of appellant, Anthony Maroon, for a writ of mandamus.  Maroon sought the writ 
to compel appellee, Ohio State Highway Patrol Retirement System, to find that he 
is a member of the State Highway Patrol fund and is eligible to apply for 
disability-retirement benefits and to receive a hearing on his claim.  The court of 
appeals adopted the decision of its magistrate, including her findings of fact and 
conclusions of law. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} Because Maroon failed to object to the magistrate’s decision and 
his  proposition of law challenges the conclusions of law in that decision as 
adopted by the court of appeals, he waived any error made by the court of appeals 
in adopting the magistrate’s conclusions and denying the writ.  See Civ.R. 
53(D)(3)(b)(iv) (“Except for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign as 
error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion, 
whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law 
under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party has objected to that finding or 
conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)”); Loc.R. 12(M)(1) of the Tenth 
District Court of Appeals (“the proceedings and decision of the magistrate and 
objections thereto shall be governed by Civ.R. 53”); State ex rel. Schmidt v. 
School Emps. Retirement Sys., 100 Ohio St.3d 317, 2003-Ohio-6086, 798 N.E.2d 
1088, ¶ 6; State ex rel. Johnson v. Ryan, 127 Ohio St.3d 267, 2010-Ohio-5676, 
939 N.E.2d 146, ¶ 3.  Nor does Maroon raise any viable claim of plain error. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, 
CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
PFEIFER, J., concurs in judgment only. 
__________________ 
 
Marc G. Doumbas, for appellant. 
 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Dennis P. Smith Jr. and 
Catherine J. Calko, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee. 
______________________