[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Neguse v. McIntosh , Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3533.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to f ormal revision before it is pu blished in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are reques ted to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohi o, 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
. 2020-O HIO -3533

T HE S TATE EX REL
. N EGUSE , A PPELLANT , v . M C I NTOSH , 1 J UDGE , A PPELLEE . [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Neguse v. McIntosh , Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3533.] Prohibition—Inmate’s affidavit listing prior civil actions failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A)—Court of appeals’ dismissal of writ affirmed. (No. 2019-1772—Submitted April 28, 2020—Decided July 2, 2020.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 18AP-526, 2019-Ohio-4950.

____________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Appellant, Mekria Neguse, a pris on inmate, seeks a writ of proh ibition to invalidate a 1995 nunc pro tunc order in which then Judge Da le A. Crawford of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denied his petition f or postconviction

1. The court of appeals noted that appellee, Judge Stephen L. M cIntosh, “as the successor to named respondent Judge Dale Crawford,” had filed a motion to dismiss. 2019-Ohio-4950, ¶ 2. In accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.06(B), we make the substitution.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 relief. On appeal, the Tenth Di strict Court of Appeals dismiss ed the cause for failure to state a claim. We affirm the Tenth District’s judgm ent, although on different grounds.
FACTS {¶ 2} Neguse is serving prison sente nces for a 1990 murder conviction that was entered on a jury verdict and 1989 convictions for drug abu se and assault that were entered on guilty pleas. In October 1993, Neguse filed a petition for postconviction relief from his 1989 convictions. Judge Crawfor d held a hearing
and denied the motion in June 1994. In February 1995, Judge Cr awford issued a nunc pro tunc entry restating his denial of postconviction reli ef. It is not clear why a nunc pro tunc entry was necessary. {¶ 3} Since then, Neguse has repeatedly challenged his 1989 convictio ns, both by filing new motions in the criminal case and by attempti ng to reopen proceedings on his 1993 postconviction petition. Neguse’s ongo ing efforts include a recent attempt to withdraw his 1989 guilty pleas. See State v. Neguse , 10th Dist.
Franklin Nos. 17AP-449 and 17A P-450, 2018-Ohio-1163. And the p resent case is at least the third attempt to obtain a writ to reopen the postc onviction petition he
filed in 1993. See State ex rel. Neguse v. Crawford , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 06AP389, 2007-Ohio-1168 (denial of writ of procedendo sought to require Judge Crawford to issue findings and conclusions in support of his de nial of postconviction relief in 1994), aff’d sub nom. State ex rel. Neguse v. McIntosh , 115 Ohio St.3d 216, 2007-Ohio-4788, 874 N.E.3d 772; State ex rel. Neguse v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 17AP-755, 2019-Ohio-564 (dismissing similar mandamus action). {¶ 4} In June 2018, Neguse filed his current complaint in the Tenth D istrict, seeking a writ of prohibition to invalidate the 1995 nunc pro t unc order. The complaint asserts that Judge Crawford never filed an original j udgment entry finalizing the denial of the postconviction petition in 1994 an d that the 1995 nuncJanuary Term, 2020

3 pro tunc order is “contrary to law and prohibited under Civ.R. 58(A), Civ.R. 60(A), Civ.R. 52, and Local Rule 25.02.” {¶ 5} The court of appeals referred the case to a magistrate, and app ellee, Judge Stephen L. McIntosh, Judge Crawford’s successor, filed a motion to dismiss. The motion invoked res judicata a nd Neguse’s failure to strictl y comply with R.C. 2969.25(A), which requires that an inmate suing a government en tity or employee submit a detailed affidavit describing all prior civil actions and appeals filed in the preceding five years. Neguse f iled a response to the motion. {¶ 6} In January 2019, the magistrate issued a decision recommending
dismissal of the action on re s judicata grounds without using t hat term. After reciting the history of Neguse’s motions pertaining to his post conviction petition, the decision states that Neguse “continues to challenge” the tr ial court’s denial of his 1994 postconviction petition. 2019-Ohio-4950, ¶ 24. The m agistrate found that “this question has been raised a nd answered by both the trial c ourt and this court.”
Id. {¶ 7} Neguse filed no objections to the magistrate’s decision. In De cember 2019, the Tenth District adopted t he magistrate’s decision and dismissed the action.
Id. at ¶ 9. Neguse appealed to this court as of right.
ANALYSIS {¶ 8} “Dismissal of [a] prohibition complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted i s appropriate if, after presu ming the truth of all factual allegations of the complaint and making all reasonable inferences in [the relator’s] favor, it appears be yond doubt that he can prove no set of facts entitling him to the requested extraor dinary writ of prohibition.” State ex rel. Hemsley v.
Unruh , 128 Ohio St.3d 307, 2011-Ohio-226, 943 N.E.2d 1014, ¶ 8. {¶ 9} Pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv), Neguse’s failure to object to the magistrate’s decision bars him from “assign[ing] as error on ap peal the court’s adoption of any factual finding o r legal conclusion” of the mag istrate. Accordingly,S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 we limit our review to plain error. State ex rel. Hunley v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. , 156 Ohio St.3d 354, 2019-Ohio-933, 126 N.E.3d 1122, ¶ 5. {¶ 10} Recently, we stated that the di smissal on grounds of res judica ta of
a mandamus action for failure to state a claim is error because res judicata is an affirmative defense that may not be raised in a motion to dismi ss. State ex rel. Green v. Wetzel , 158 Ohio St.3d 104, 2019-Ohio-4228, 140 N.E.3d 586, ¶ 6, citing Civ.R. 8(C). However, this court will not reverse a correct ju dgment merely because erroneous reasons were given for it. Id . In this case, we affirm the Tenth District’s judgment but for different reasons. See, e.g. , State ex rel. Evans v. Scioto Cty. Common Pleas Court , 155 Ohio St.3d 41, 2018-Ohio-4696, 118 N.E.3d 249, ¶

5. {¶ 11} Neguse’s complaint was correctly dismissed because his affidavi t did not comply with R.C. 2969.25( A). R.C. 2969.25(A) requires an inmate who commences a civil action or appeal against a government entity or employee to file, at the time the action or appeal is commenced, “an affidavit th at contains a description of each civil action or appeal of a civil action th at the inmate has filed in the previous five years in any state or federal court.” The affidavit must include all of the following for each prior action or appeal:

(1) A brief description of the nature of the civil action or appeal; (2) The case name, case numbe r, and the court in which the civil action or appeal was brought; (3) The name of each party to the civil action or appeal; and (4) The outcome of the civil action or appeal, including whether the court dismissed the civil action or appeal as frivo lous or
malicious under state or feder al law or rule of court * * *.January Term, 2020

5 {¶ 12} The affidavit Neguse filed with his prohibition complaint does not satisfy the statutory requireme nts. Although it refers to the mandamus action that the Tenth District dismissed in 2019, see State ex rel. Neguse , 2019-Ohio-564, it does not include the case number, the nature of the case, the d isposition, or the fact that Neguse pursued an interlocutory appeal to this court that was dismissed for failure to prosecute, see 153 Ohio St.3d 1444, 2018-Ohio-2897, 102 N.E.3d 501. Neguse’s failure to file an affidavit that strictly complies wi th R.C. 2969.25(A) is a sufficient ground for dismissal. See , e.g. , Robinson v. Fender , ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2020-Ohio-458, ___ N.E.3d ___, ¶ 6 (affidavit reciting that claimant could not remember the prior civil actions he had filed did not comply wi th the statute and was grounds for dismissal); State ex rel. Swanson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. , 156 Ohio St.3d 408, 2019-Ohio-1271, 128 N.E.3d 193, ¶ 6-7 (omission of one case from the affidavit’s list of prior civil actions constituted a failure to comply with the statute, justifying dismissal); State ex rel. Ware v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 19AP-511, 2020-Ohio-594, ¶ 4-6 (cause dismissed even though the relator had filed an affidavit extensively reciting his prior civil actions,
because the affidavit failed to set forth the nature of each ca se). {¶ 13} In any event, Neguse’s complaint fails to state a claim for rel ief because he had an adequate remedy at law by appeal from Judge C rawford’s denial of his petition for postc onviction relief. {¶ 14} To establish entitlement to a writ of prohibition, Neguse had t he burden to plead—and ultimately prove—that (1) Judge Crawford ex ercised judicial power in connection with the petition for postconviction relief , (2) the judge’s exercise of judicial power was u nauthorized by law, and (3) den ying the writ would result in injury for which no other adequate remedy exists in t he ordinary course of
the law. State ex rel. Greene Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. O’Diam , 156 Ohio St.3d 458, 2019-Ohio-1676, 129 N.E.3d 393, ¶ 16.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

6 {¶ 15} Neguse cannot establish the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law: his remedy for any alleged error on Judge Crawford’s part was to appeal the judge’s 1994 judgment entry. The gravam en of Neguse’s complaint lies in his attempt, b y invalidating the nunc pro tun c order, to reset the clock so that he may renew his contentions that he is entitled to postconviction relief on the merits. His prayer for relief makes this purpose explic it by requesting that Judge Crawford be ordered to “ma ke findings of fact and conclus ions of law,” which Neguse would then contest. But a direct appeal 26 years ago was the avenue for advancing that challenge. {¶ 16} Neguse’s complaint suggests that he had no opportunity to appea l because Judge Crawford “without reason never filed a judgment e ntry denying the petition for post-conviction relie f after June 29, 1994.” (Emp hasis deleted.) This contradicts the complaint’s ad mission that the judge issued the 1995 nunc pro tunc order, which explicitly denies the postconviction petition. Ne guse fails to explain why, even if no earlier dispositive order had been entered, he could not have appealed from the nunc pro tunc order itself. {¶ 17} Moreover, the previous decisions o f the Tenth District establis h that there was a June 1994 judgment entry from which Neguse could ha ve appealed. In denying Neguse’s 2007 request for a writ of prohibition, the Te nth District noted that “the trial court denied [ Neguse’s] petition for postconvic tion relief in an entry filed on June 29, 1994 .” (Emphasis added.) State ex rel. Neguse , 2007-Ohio-1168,

at ¶ 7. And in affirming the trial court’s rejection of Neguse’s a ttempt to withdraw the guilty pleas leading to the 1989 convictions, the Tenth Dis trict similarly referred to the disposition of Neguse’ s 1993 postconviction petition and stated that Neguse’s attempted appeal from Judge Craw ford’s 1994 denial of his postc onviction petition was dismissed by the court of appeals in April 1995. See Neguse , 2018-Ohio-1163,

at ¶ 10. Indeed, in his recent mandamus case, Neguse himself ackno wledged that after Judge Crawford “den[ied] [Neguse’s] Post-Conviction Petit ion in an entryJanuary Term, 2020

7 filed June 29, 1994,” Neguse “filed [a] Notice of appeal July 2 6, 1994,” which the court of appeals later dismissed because of Neguse’s “failure * * * to file a brief,” State ex rel. Neguse , 2019-Ohio-564, at ¶ 15. {¶ 18} When entertaining a motion to dismiss a writ complaint, a court may take notice of the doc ket and record in a closely related case to determine whether the current complaint states a claim for relief. In State ex rel. Neff v. Corrigan , 75 Ohio St.3d 12, 15-16, 661 N.E.2d 170 (1996), we affirmed the co urt of appeals’ dismissal of a prohibition complaint and thereby approved of th e court of appeals’ taking notice of whether a particular issue had been presented and resolved in earlier appeals relating to the underlying litigation. And in Klick v. Snavely , 119 Ohio St. 308, 309-310, 164 N.E. 233 (1928), we dismissed a quo warranto petition by taking notice of the record of a parallel mandamus case invo lving the same parties; in doing so, we determined that a central allegation o f the quo warranto petition was not true, and on that basis, we granted the motion to dismiss. Here, we may take notice that Neguse’s complaint misstates the record of the postconviction proceedings. {¶ 19} Accordingly, Neguse possessed an adequate remedy at law by appeal in 1994 or in 1995 from the judgments denying his petiti on for postconviction relief.
CONCLUSION {¶ 20} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Neguse’s prohibition complaint, albeit on di fferent grounds. Judgment affirmed.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and F RENCH , F ISCHER , and S TEWART , JJ., concur.

K ENNEDY , D E W INE , and D ONNELLY , JJ., concur in judgment only.

_________________ Mekria Neguse, pro se.

_________________