[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Johnson v. Kral, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-2382.]

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 De cisions, 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.

S LIP O PINION N O . 2018-O HIO -2382 [T HE S TATE EX REL .] J OHNSON , A PPELLANT , v . K RAL , A PPELLEE . [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Johnson v. Kral, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-2382.] Mandamus—Appellant has adequate remedies in ordinary course of law—Court of appeals’ dismissal of complaint affirmed. (No. 2017-0969—Submitted December 5, 2017—Decided June 21, 2018.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, No. L-17-1144.

________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Appellant, Tyrone R. Johnson, app eals the decision of the Sixth District Court of Appeals dismissing the complaint for a writ of mandamus that he filed against appellee, George Kral, Chief of Police of the Toledo police department. We affirm the judg ment of the court of appeals. {¶ 2} In his complaint, Johnson alleged that on August 25, 2000, Lucas County Court of Common Pleas Judge Char les Wittenberg granted a motion for theS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 return from the Toledo police department of property to him in the amount of $324. Rather than comply with the order, the police department allegedly deposited the money “into the Lucas County Treasury.” Johnson requested a writ of mandamus compelling Chief Kral and the police depa rtment to return the $324 and to award him compensatory and punitive damages. {¶ 3} On June 27, 2017, the court of appeals dismissed the complaint sua sponte. {¶ 4} A writ of mandamus will not issue if the relator has a plain and adequate remedy in the ordi nary course of the law. State ex rel. Blandin v. Beck
, 114 Ohio St.3d 455, 2007-Ohio-4562, 872 N.E.2d 1232, ¶ 18. Based on the allegations in the complaint, Johnson has two separate remedies that preclude the
issuance of a writ of mandamus. {¶ 5} Johnson alleged that the police de partment has not complied with a trial-court order directing a return of the property. If that allegation is true, then a motion for contempt for the failure to abide by a court order is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Weaver v. Adult Parole Auth. , 116 Ohio St.3d 340, 2007-Ohio-6435, 879 N.E.2d 191, ¶ 6. In addition, he has an adequate remedy by filing an action for replevin. Blandin at ¶ 18; State ex rel.
Harris v. Toledo , 74 Ohio St.3d 36, 38, 656 N.E.2d 334 (1995). “The proper action to reclaim possession of prope rty based on unlawful seizure or detention is an action for replevin.” State ex rel. Jividen v. Toledo Police Dept. , 112 Ohio App.3d 458, 459, 679 N.E.2d 34 (6th Dist.1996). Dismissa l of the complaint was therefore proper, because Johnson failed to state a claim in mandamus. Judgment affirmed.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and O’D ONNELL , K ENNEDY , F RENCH , F ISCHER , and
D E W INE , JJ., concur.
D E G ENARO , J., not participating.

_________________January Term, 2018

3 Tyrone R. Johnson, pro se. Adam W. Loukx, Toledo Director of Law, and Jeffrey B. Charles, Assistant Director of Law, for appellee.

_________________