[Cite as Allen v. Thompson, 2017-Ohio-4234.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

LAKE COUNTY, OHIO 

PAMELLA R. ALLEN, : O P I N I O N 

 Petitioner-Appellee, : 

 CASE NO. 2016-L-038

 - vs - : 

MATTHEW D. THOMPSON, : 

 Respondent-Appellant. : 

Civil Appeal from the Lake County Court of Common Pleas. 

Case No. 2016 CS 000068. 

Judgment: Affirmed. 

Pamella R. Allen, pro se, 21 Angela Circle, Painesville, OH, 44077 (PetitionerAppellee). 

Matthew D. Thompson, pro se, PID: A682-048, Trumbull Correctional Institution, P.O. 

BOX 901, 5701 Burnett Road, Leavittsburg, OH 44430 (Respondent-Appellant). 

TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J. 

{¶1} Appellant, Matthew D. Thompson, appeals from the April 19, 2016 

judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas. The trial court granted a civil 

protection order to appellee, Pamella R. Allen, and her children, against appellant. For 

the following reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

{¶2} On January 13, 2016, appellee filed a petition for a civil stalking protection 

order against appellant pursuant to R.C. 2903.214. Appellee sought relief on her own 
 2

behalf and on behalf of her four minor children. Appellant was incarcerated at the time 

the petition was filed. 

{¶3} A magistrate issued an ex parte order of protection, effective until March 

13, 2016. A full hearing on the order was scheduled for January 19, 2016. 

{¶4} After being served with summons and a notice of hearing, appellant 

requested a continuance of the full hearing due to a related pending criminal case. The 

full hearing was continued to April 12, 2016, and the ex parte order was extended to 

May 13, 2016. Appellant was served with summons and notice on January 20, 2016. 

{¶5} The matter was referred to a magistrate pursuant to Civ.R. 65.1(F), and a 

full hearing was conducted on April 12, 2016. Appellee and two other witnesses 

testified at the hearing. Appellant was not present at the hearing because he was 

incarcerated. The magistrate entered findings of fact and conclusions of law on April 

15, 2016. The magistrate recommended that a civil protection order be granted to 

appellee and her children, against appellant, through January 13, 2021. 

{¶6} On April 19, 2016, the trial court adopted the magistrate’s findings of fact 

and conclusions of law and granted the protection order. 

{¶7} On May 13, 2016, appellant filed a timely pro se notice of appeal from the 

trial court’s April 19, 2016 judgment entry. Appellee did not file a brief. 

{¶8} On appeal, appellant asserts a sole assignment of error for our review: 

The error is clearly placed on the Lake County Common Pleas 

Court and Magistrate Adrienne Foster for allowing lying and 

slanderous testimony to be presented by Ms. Allen with no chance 

for Mr. Thompson to defend himself, there by [sic] granting the 

order of protection with no substantial evidence other than 

testimony of Ms. Allen’s mother and best friend both of whom are 

obviously biased. 

 
 3

{¶9} Appellant argues the trial court’s granting of a civil protection order against 

him was unjust because he was incarcerated and therefore unable to attend the hearing 

on April 12, 2016, to defend himself. Appellant alleges the witnesses at the April 12, 

2016 hearing were not credible, and he sets forth his own account of the facts in his 

appellate brief. 

{¶10} Our ability to review appellant’s assignment of error is hindered by his 

failure to file a transcript of the proceedings or a suitable alternative. See App.R. 9. “To 

prevail on an appeal, an appellant must affirmatively demonstrate, through reference to 

the record of the proceeding before the trial court, that the trial court committed error.” 

Buckley v. Ollila, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 98-T-0177, 2000 WL 263739, *1 (Mar. 3, 2000) 

(citation omitted). “In reviewing an appellant’s case, an appellate court is bound entirely 

by the record presented to it and cannot consider evidence outside of the record.” Id. 

(citations omitted). Although appellant makes reference to a transcript in his appellate 

brief, there is no transcript in the record. It appears appellant is referring to the 

magistrate’s findings of fact and conclusions of law filed April 15, 2016. 

{¶11} Because appellant has failed to provide a transcript of the proceedings, 

there is no way for this court to determine whether the trial court’s decision is supported 

by competent, credible evidence going to all elements of the case. See id. Accordingly, 

we cannot review appellant’s assignment of error to the extent it relates to a factual 

dispute, and we must presume the regularity of the proceedings. Gomez v. Kiner, 10th 

Dist. Franklin Nos. 11AP-767 & 11AP-768, 2012-Ohio-1019, ¶5. We may only address 

appellant’s assignment of error as it pertains to issues of law. Therefore, we direct our 

attention to appellant’s argument that the trial court’s granting of the civil protection 
 4

order was unjust because appellant was unable to attend the full hearing while he was 

incarcerated. 

{¶12} Appellant was served with notice of the initial hearing. He filed a motion 

for a continuance, which is not part of our record, requesting the hearing be continued 

due to a pending criminal case. Appellant was again served with notice of the 

rescheduled hearing. Appellant does not assert, and the record does not reflect, that he 

filed a motion to transport or a motion to continue due to his incarceration. Appellant 

has not demonstrated that the trial court’s order was unjust because he was not present 

at the hearing. See Parker v. Jamison, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 02CA002857, 2003-Ohio7295, ¶20 (citation omitted) (“Ohio Courts have repeatedly recognized that a person 

who is incarcerated has no absolute right to appear at a civil action.”). 

{¶13} Furthermore, appellant has cited no law to support his argument in 

accordance with the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. See App.R. 16(A)(7) (“The 

appellant shall include in its brief * * * [a]n argument containing the contentions of the 

appellant * * * with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record on which 

appellant relies.”). 

{¶14} We acknowledge that appellant is a pro se litigant in this matter and that a 

court may “‘grant a certain amount of latitude toward pro se litigants.’” Henderson v. 

Henderson, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2012-G-3118, 2013-Ohio-2820, ¶22, quoting 

Goodrich v. Ohio Unemp. Comp. Rev. Comm., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 11AP473, 2012-

Ohio-467, ¶25 (citation omitted). “However, the court cannot simply disregard the rules 

in order to accommodate a party who fails to obtain counsel.” Id. This court has held 

that “a pro se litigant is held to the same standard as other litigants and is not entitled to 
 5

special treatment from the court.” Metzenbaum v. Gates, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2003-

G-2503, 2004-Ohio-2924, ¶7, citing Kilroy v. B.H. Lakeshore Co., 111 Ohio App.3d 357, 

363 (8th Dist.1996). 

{¶15} Appellant has failed in any way to support his argument that the trial 

court’s order was unjust because appellant was not present at the full hearing. He has 

also failed to provide citation to any law in support of his argument. Therefore, 

appellant’s sole assignment of error is without merit. 

{¶16} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Lake County Court of 

Common Pleas is affirmed. 

DIANE V. GRENDELL, J., 

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J., 

concur.