[Cite as Bunting v. Bailey , 2020-Ohio-3124.]

COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

PAUL EDWARD BUNTING JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellan t Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Patricia A. Delane y , J. -vs- Case No. 2020CA00005 ROBIN BAILEY c/o VOAGO, CASE MGR. AID Defendant-Appellee O P I N IO N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2019CV01496

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: Ma y 27, 2020

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellan t For Defendant-Appellee

PAUL EDWARD BUNTING FRANK H. SCIALDONE 4520 Lincoln Street, East, Lot No. 3 Mazanec, Raskin & R y der Co., LPA East Canton, Ohio 44730-0433 Cleveland Office 100 Franklin’s Row, 34305 Solon Road Cleveland, Ohio 44139Stark Count y , Case No. 2020CA00005 2

Hoffman, P.J. {¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Paul Edward Bunting appeals the December 9, 2019 Judgment Entry entered by the Stark County Common Pleas Court g ranting defendantappellee Robin Bailey’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 1 {¶2} Appellant filed a complaint for monetary damages against Appell ee on July 23, 2019. The underlying claim involved Appellee’s alleged ref usal to allow Appellant to personally attend a civil pretrial hearing for a case Appellant had filed in the Tuscarawas County Common Pleas Court. {¶3} At the time of that pretrial, Appellee was Appellant’s case man ager aid at Volunteers of America of Greater Ohio, where Appellant was comp leting a postincarceration, supervised re-entry program. Appellant asserted Appellee’s refusal to allow him to attend the pre-trial violated the program’s Reside nt Handbook and his constitutional rights and resulted in his Tuscarawas County cas e being dismissed for failure to prosecute. {¶4} Appellee filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on Octobe r 10, 2019. Appellant filed a brief in opposition on November 13, 2019. The trial court granted Appellee’s motion on December 9, 2019. It is from that entry A ppellant prosecutes this appeal, assigning as error:

THE JUDGMENT ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS BY JUDGE KRISTEN G.

1 A full rendition of the factual allegations in Appellant’s com plaint is unnecessary for our resolution of this appeal.Stark Count y , Case No. 2020CA00005 3

FARMER, CIVIL COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, STARK COUNTY, OHIO, CASE NO. 2019 CV 01496, FILED DECEMBER 9, 2019, IS NOT A FINAL APPEALABLE ORDER PURSUANT TO THE R.C. §2505.02, ET AL.

ANALYSIS {¶5} Appellant maintains the trial court’s December 9, 2019 Judgment Entry was not a final appealable order because it did not include Civ.R. 54(B) language there was “no just reason for delay” when dismissing his multi-claim comp laint against Appellee. 2 {¶6} In its judgment entry, the trial court found Appellant’s claims failed as a

matter of law to set forth facts that would entitle him to reli ef. The trial court sustained Appellee’s Civ.R. 12(C) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, a nd “dismisses ALL of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Robin Bailey." (See Dec. 9, 2019 Judgment Entry at p. 2, emphasis added.) {¶7} Additionally, Appellant argues the trial court erred in failing to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law in rendering its decision. 3 Appellant concludes because the trial court’s entry was not a final appealable order, this Court should dismiss his appeal for want of a final appealable order and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings with instructions to issue findings of fact and con clusions of law. {¶8} Contrary to Appellant’s contention, we find the trial court’s D ecember 9, 2019 Judgment Entry was a final appealable order pursuant to R. C. 2505.02, therefore, did not require Civ.R. 54(B) language. We also find, pursuant to Civ.R. 52, “Findings of

2 Appellant does not challenge the substantive basis of the tria l court’s decision but rather only asserts procedural error. 3 This argument was not separately assigned as error as required by App.R. 16(A).Stark Count y , Case No. 2020CA00005 4

fact and conclusions of law... are unnecessary upon all other mot ions including those pursuant to Civ.R. 12”; therefore, the trial court did not err in granting Appellee’s Civ.R. 12(C) motion without issuing findings of fact or conclusions of law. {¶9} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled. {¶10} The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

By: Hoffman, P.J. Wise, John, J. and Delaney, J. concur