Case Title: Martin v. Roeder

Citation: 1996-Ohio-451

Docket Number: 19960399

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1996-06-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
Martin, Appellant, v. Roeder et al., Appellees. 
[Cite as Martin v. Roeder (1996),   Ohio St.3d   .] 
Appellate procedure -- Civ.R. 60(B) inapplicable to appellate proceedings. 
 
(No. 96-399 -- Submitted May 7, 1996 -- Decided June 19, 1996.) 
 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No. 9-94-46. 
 
In 1994, appellant, Robert Martin, filed a complaint in the Marion County 
Court of Common Pleas against appellees, employees of Marion Correctional 
Institution, alleging a violation of Section 1983, Title 42, U.S. Code.  The 
common pleas court granted summary judgment in favor of appellees.  The court 
of appeals affirmed the judgment on appeal.  Martin v. Roeder (Dec. 16, 1994), 
Marion App. No. 9-94-46, unreported, 1994 WL 709699.  A discretionary appeal 
to this court was not allowed.  Martin v. Roeder (1995), 71 Ohio St.3d 1502, 646 
N.E.2d 1126. 
 
In January 1996, Martin filed a Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion for relief from the 
court of appeals’ 1994 judgment.  The court of appeals overruled Martin’s motion 
based on its determination that Civ.R. 60(B) was inapplicable to appellate 
proceedings.   
 
The cause is now before the court upon a claimed appeal as of right. 
 
2
____________________ 
 
Robert Martin, pro se. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Paula Luna Paoletti, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellees. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  The court of appeals correctly concluded that Civ.R. 60(B) is 
clearly inapplicable to review the court’s judgment on appeal.  Civ.R. 1(C)(1).  
The Rules of Appellate Procedure govern appeals from trial courts of record to 
courts of appeals in Ohio.  App.R. 1(A); Pegan v. Crawmer (1996), 73 Ohio St.3d 
607, 608, 653 N.E.2d 659, 660; see, generally, McCormac, Ohio Civil Rules 
Practice (2 Ed.1992) 5, Section 1.05 (Civil Rules have no application to procedure 
in courts of appeals to review any judgment, order, or ruling, since the Appellate 
Rules set forth the applicable procedure). 
 
In addition, under the Appellate Rules, application for reconsideration of 
any judgment submitted on appeal must be filed within ten days after filing of the 
judgment or announcement of the court’s decision, whichever is later.  App.R. 
26(A).  Therefore, even if Martin’s motion could have been construed as an 
application for reconsideration, it would have been untimely. 
 
3
 
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
STRATTON, JJ., concur.