Title: State ex rel. Martin v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.

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. Martin v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-6164.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2009-OHIO-6164 
THE STATE EX REL. MARTIN, APPELLANT, v. OHIO ADULT  
PAROLE AUTHORITY, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Martin v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.,  
Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-6164.] 
Failure to timely file appeal from court of appeals’ judgment — Motion for 
reconsideration does not extend time to file appeal — Civ.R 60(B) motion 
is not a substitute for a timely appeal — Judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2009-1279 — Submitted November 18, 2009 — Decided  
December 1, 2009.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, No. L-09-1094. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We dismiss the appeal of appellant, Robert Martin, because 
although he challenges the court of appeals’ April 2009 judgment dismissing his 
complaint for a writ of mandamus and declaratory relief, he did not file a timely 
appeal from that judgment.  S.Ct.Prac.R. II(2)(A)(1).  Neither his motion for 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
reconsideration nor his Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment extended his 
time to appeal the judgment.  Cotten v. Fitzpatrick, 98 Ohio St.3d 24, 2002-Ohio-
7043, 780 N.E.2d 1019, ¶ 6; Key v. Mitchell (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 89, 90, 689 
N.E.2d 548.  Finally,  a “Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment cannot be 
used as a substitute for a timely appeal * * *.”  Id. at 90-91, 689 N.E.2d 548; State 
ex rel. Richard v. Cuyahoga Cty. Commrs. (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 205, 206, 729 
N.E.2d 755. 
Appeal dismissed. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Robert Martin, pro se. 
 
Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Melissa Montgomery, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
______________________