Title: State ex rel. Boddie v. Franklin County 911 Adm'r

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Boddie v. Franklin Cty. 911 Admr., Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-401.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2013-OHIO-401 
THE STATE EX REL. BODDIE, APPELLANT, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY 911 
ADMINISTRATOR, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Boddie v. Franklin Cty. 911 Admr.,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-401.] 
Appellate procedure—Final orders—Magistrate’s decision not appealable. 
(No. 2012-1548—Submitted February 5, 2013—Decided February 14, 2013.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 12AP-523. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We dismiss the appeal of appellant, Howard Boddie Jr., from an 
order denying his motion for reconsideration of a magistrate’s decision 
recommending dismissal of his action for a writ of mandamus.  “Appeals as a 
matter of right may be taken to the Supreme Court in cases originating in courts 
of appeals, including actions involving extraordinary writs.”  State ex rel. Sawicki 
v. Lucas Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 121 Ohio St.3d 507, 2009-Ohio-1523, 905 
N.E.2d 1192, ¶ 11; Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 2(B)(2)(a)(i).  “R.C. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
2505.03 restricts the appellate jurisdiction of this court to the review of final 
orders, judgments, or decrees.”  State ex rel. Downs v. Panioto, 107 Ohio St.3d 
347, 2006-Ohio-8, 839 N.E.2d 911, ¶ 17. 
{¶ 2} “R.C. 2505.02 defines a final order for purposes of appeal.”  Id. at 
¶ 18.  The applicable portion of this statute states, “An order is a final order that 
may be reviewed, affirmed, modified, or reversed, with or without retrial, when it 
is * * * [a]n order that affects a substantial right in an action that in effect 
determines the action and prevents a judgment.”  R.C. 2505.02(B)(1).  The 
magistrate’s decision recommending dismissal of Boddie’s mandamus case is not 
a final, appealable order, because it does not determine the mandamus action and 
prevent a judgment.  See Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(a) (“A magistrate’s decision is not 
effective unless adopted by the court”) and (e) (“A court that adopts, rejects, or 
modifies a magistrate’s decision shall also enter a judgment or interim order”); In 
re Adoption of S.R.A., 189 Ohio App.3d 363, 2010-Ohio-4435, 938 N.E.2d 432, 
¶ 17 (“Orders do not constitute court orders unless certain formalities are met, and 
only judges, not magistrates, can terminate claims or actions by entering 
judgment”).  Nor did the court of appeals order denying Boddie’s motion for 
reconsideration of the magistrate’s decision constitute a final, appealable order.  
See Brewer v. Hope Timber Pallet & Recycling, 5th Dist. No. 10-CA-76, 2011-
Ohio-533 (order denying motion for reconsideration of interlocutory order 
denying motion for summary judgment is not a final, appealable order); Harkai v. 
Scherba Industries, Inc., 136 Ohio App.3d 211, 218, 736 N.E.2d 101 (2000) 
(“Although the judge entirely agrees with the decision of the magistrate, the judge 
must still separately enter his or her own judgment setting forth the outline of the 
dispute and the remedy provided”).  The court of appeals’ order denying the 
motion for reconsideration did not resolve Boddie’s mandamus claim, which, 
according to the court’s website, was dismissed by the court of appeals in 
accordance with the magistrate’s decision on January 7, 2013.  
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
{¶ 3} Therefore, the order appealed from does not constitute a final, 
appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(1), because it does not determine 
Boddie’s mandamus action or prevent a judgment.  State ex rel. Keith v. 
McMonagle, 103 Ohio St.3d 430, 2004-Ohio-5580, 816 N.E.2d 597, ¶ 4.  We thus 
lack jurisdiction over this appeal and dismiss it. 
Appeal dismissed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and 
O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
FRENCH, J., not participating. 
__________________ 
 
Howard Boddie Jr., pro se. 
______________________