[Cite as Kaur v. Singh, 2019-Ohio-3512.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

PARAMJOT KAUR, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 No. 107774 

 v. : 

RAJBINDER SINGH, : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: August 29, 2019 

 

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Domestic Relations Division 

Case No. DR-04-302459 

 

Appearances: 

Edward M. Heindel, for appellant. 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.: 

Defendant-appellant Rajbinder Singh appeals from the trial court’s 

order adopting the magistrate’s decision which granted plaintiff-appellee Paramjot 

Kaur’s motion to modify the shared parenting plan. We affirm. 

Factual and Procedural Background 
The marriage of Singh and Kaur was dissolved in 2005. At the time 

of dissolution, the court designated Kaur as the residential parent and legal 

custodian for their two minor children. Subsequently, Kaur moved out of state and, 

following this move, Singh was designated the residential parent. Kaur filed a 

motion to modify the shared parenting plan for the children based on a change in 

circumstance. 

A magistrate conducted a hearing on Kaur’s motion. At the hearing, 

the court heard testimony from Singh and Kaur, as well as the children’s guardian 

ad litem (“GAL”). The court accepted the GAL’s report and its attached exhibits into 

evidence as well as exhibits offered by Kaur. Singh appeared at the hearing pro se 

and failed to object to any of the issues that form the basis for his assignments of 

error on appeal. 1 

After the hearing, the magistrate issued a decision that contained an 

analysis of the best interests of the children. The decision concluded that Kaur be 

designated the residential parent and legal custodian of the children and that Singh, 

as the nonresidential parent, “have parenting time according to the Court’s 

Parenting Time Guidelines for Non-Residential Parent but only subject to the 

 1 We note that in general, pro se litigants are held to the same standard as all other 

litigants. Pietrangelo v. Hudson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107344, 2019-Ohio-1988, ¶ 3. 

Courts therefore operate under the presumption that a pro se litigant has knowledge of the 

law as well as legal procedure and afford that person no special treatment. Loreta v. 

Allstate Ins. Co., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97921, 2012-Ohio-3375, ¶ 7; see also Butcher v. 

Stevens, 182 Ohio App.3d 77, 2009-Ohio-1754, 911 N.E.2d 928, ¶ 12 (4th Dist.) (“When 

parties choose to represent themselves they are bound, just as attorneys are, by the rules of 

evidence and civil procedure.”).
recommendation of the minor children’s counsel and voluntarily on the part of the 

minor children * * *.” 

Singh, through counsel, raised four objections with the trial court 

challenging the magistrate’s decision. None of his objections challenged the 

magistrate’s analysis of the best interests of the children or its ultimate conclusion 

that Kaur’s motion should be granted. Instead, Singh only asserted four evidentiary 

objections, arguing to the trial court that the magistrate erred by permitting Kaur to 

present certain evidence despite the fact that he failed to object at the hearing. The 

trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision in its entirety. 

Singh now appeals from the trial court’s order adopting that decision. 

Assignments of Error 

On appeal, in his four assignments of error, Singh reasserts the same 

complaints against the magistrate that the trial court dismissed: 

1. The Magistrate erred in allowing leading questions to permeate the 

direct examination of Kaur. 

2. The Magistrate erred when she permitted inadmissible hearsay on 

the direct examination of Kaur. 

3. The Magistrate erred when she permitted opinion testimony of Kaur. 

4. The Magistrate erred when she permitted medical diagnosis 

testimony without certified medical records, or the testimony of the 

medical provider. 

Singh does not challenge the trial court’s order adopting the magistrate’s decision. 

Law and Analysis
We review a trial court’s action with respect to a magistrate’s decision 

for an abuse of discretion. Kapadia v. Kapadia, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 94456, 

2011-Ohio-2255, ¶ 7. 

Because each of Singh’s assignments of error suffers from the same 

fatal infirmity, we address and dispose of them together. None of Singh’s 

assignments of error address the matter within the scope of our review, namely, 

whether the trial court abused its discretion by adopting the magistrate’s decision. 

As articulated, his assignments of error merely challenge the 

magistrate’s conduct based on objections that he did not make. Singh does not 

address whether or how the trial court committed error and he fails to articulate any 

basis by which we may conclude that it did. 

Moreover, we further note that although Singh did provide some 

citation to legal authority and general propositions of law in his brief, he 

nevertheless omitted any analysis to link that authority to the facts of this case. 

Instead, he simply concluded that the trial court erred without offering any analysis 

with which we could agree. See App.R. 16(A)(7). 

We overrule Singh’s four assignments of error. 

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed. 

 The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment 

into execution. 
 A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 

27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

 __ 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE 

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J., and 

KATHLEEN A. KEOUGH, J., CONCUR