[Cite as Swartz v. Swartz , 2011-Ohio-6685.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA ) JESSE F. SWARTZ, V Appellant

v.

JANE A. SWARTZ Appellee C.A. No. 11CA0057-M

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO CASE No. 11DV0067

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: December 27, 2011

WHITMORE, Judge. {¶1} Respondent-Appellant, Jesse F. Swartz, V (“Son”), appeals from the judgment of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. This Court affirms.

I {¶2} On March 22, 2011, Petitioner-Appe llee, Jane A. Swartz (“Mother”), petitioned the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, Domes tic Relations Division, for a civil protection order (“CPO”) restraining Son. Mother alleged th at Son’s history of viol ence toward his father, Jesse F. Swartz, IV (“Husband”), Son’s history of mental illness, and other threatening behavior put her and Husband in fear of physical harm. A magistrate granted an ex parte protection order. The matter came on for hearing before the magist rate on April 4, 2011. Following that hearing, on April 6, 2011, the magistrate granted a five-year protection order. The trial court adopted and approved the magistrate’s decision on the same day.2

{¶3} Son now appeals and raises three assignments of error for our review. As will be discussed further below, Son has failed to raise these issues through objections to the magistrate’s decision. He also failed to provi de a transcript, or su itable substitute, of the proceedings before the magistrate. Consequently, his arguments may not be raised for the first time on appeal, and this Court is precluded from addressing them.

II Assignment of Error Number One

“A MEETING BETWEEN OPPOSING COUNSEL AND THE MAGISTRATE TOOK PLACE WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF JESSE F. SWARTZ, V ON APRIL 4TH, 2011[.]” Assignment of Error Number Two

“RULING WAS INCORRECT AS NO VIOLENCE OR THREAT OF IMMINENT VIOLENCE OCCURRED DURING THE MARCH 18TH, 2011 VISIT TO APPELLEE’S HOME[.]” Assignment of Error Number Three “JESSE F. SWARTZ, V REQUESTED VIA LETTER TO THE MAGISTRATE THAT MEDIATION OCCUR AND WAS DENIED.” {¶4} In his three assignments of error, Son challenges certain procedural aspects of the proceedings before the magistrate. He also chal lenges the trial court’s a doption and approval of the magistrate’s findings and ruling and contends that the CPO should be reversed because there was no showing that he posed a threat of “imminent serious physical harm” as required by law. Furthermore, in his brief, he states that he “seeks *** to respond to testimony offered on April 4th, 2011 as he proceeded without counsel[.]” {¶5} Initially, we note that with respect to pro se litigants, this Court has held as

follows: “[P]ro se litigants should be granted reasonable leeway such that their motions and pleadings should be liberally construe d so as to decide the issues on the3

merits, as opposed to technicalities. Howe ver, a pro se litigant is presumed to have knowledge of the law and correct le gal procedures so that [he] remains subject to the same rules and procedures to which represented litigants are bound. [He] is not given greater rights than represented parties, and must bear the consequences of [his] mista kes. This Court, therefore, must hold [pro se appellants] to the same standard as an y represented party.” (Internal citations omitted.) King v. Akron Metro. Hous. Auth ., 9th Dist. No. 25664, 2011-Ohio2884, at ¶7, quoting Sherlock v. Myers , 9th Dist. No. 22071, 2004-Ohio-5178, at ¶3. {¶6} In order for a civil protection order to issue, “the trial court must find that petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the ev idence that petitioner or petitioner’s family or household members are in danger of domestic violence.” Felton v. Felton (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 34, paragraph two of the syllabus. “Domestic violence,” as defined by R.C. 3113.31(A)(1), includes, in pertinent part, “(a) [a]ttempting to cause or recklessly causing bodily injury;” and “(b) [p]lacing another person by the threat of force in fear of imminent serious physical harm[.]” {¶7} “Rule 53(D)(3)(b)(iv) provide s that, except for a claim of plain error, a party forfeits the right to assign error on appeal with respect to the trial court’s adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion ‘unless the party ha s objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).’” Ilg. v. Ilg , 9th Dist. No. 23987, 2008-Ohio-6792, at ¶6, quoting Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv). The record demons trates that Son did not object to any of the magistrate’s findings or its conclusion that S on violated R.C. 3113.31. In failing to do so, Son has forfeited his arguments. Moreover, he has not argued plain error on appeal. Because Son has forfeited his challenge to the findings and conc lusion at issue and has not argued plain error, this Court will not address his arguments. {¶8} Moreover, even if son had alleged plain erro r, this Court is deprived of the ability to review the trial court’s adoption and affirmance of the magistrate’s fi ndings and conclusions because Son failed to include a transcript of the relevant magistrate hearing, or suitable4

substitute, with the lower court. Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii) provides that “[a]n objection to a factual finding, whether or not specifical ly designated as a finding of fact under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), shall be supported by a transcript of all the evidence submitted to th e magistrate relevant to that finding or an affidavit of that evidence if a tr anscript is not available.” The duty to provide a transcript or affidavit to the trial court rests with the person objecting to the magistrate’s

decision. Weitzel v. Way , 9th Dist. No. 21539, 2003-Ohio-6822, at ¶17. {¶9} Therefore, as this Court has previous ly stated regarding this issue: “Due to the fact that [Son] failed to provide the trial court with a transcript of the hearing***, this Court does not know what evidence, if any, [Son] produced to support his allegations and claims. Accord ingly, this Court concludes that the trial court did not err in adopting and affirming th e magistrate’s findings. Boggs v. Boggs (1997), 118 Ohio App.3d 293, 301. ‘Furth ermore, without an adequate record, a court of appeals must presume [the] regularity of the [trial] court’s judgment based on the [magistrate’ s] report and recommendations.’ Ferrone v. Kovack , 9th Dist. No. 3279-M, 2002-Ohio-3625, at ¶8.” Saipin v. Coy , 9th Dist. No. 21800, 2004-Ohio-2670, at ¶11. {¶10} Consequently, even if Son had complied with App.R. 9(B) or App.R. 9(C) and filed a transcript of the magistrate’s proceedings or a statement of the evidence with this Court, we would, nevertheless, be precl uded from reviewing the transcript due to Son’s failure to file a transcript with the trial court. Savage v. Savage , 11th Dist. No. Nos. 2004-L-024 & 2004-L040, 2004-Ohio-6341, at ¶33-35.

III {¶11} Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the trial court did not err in adopting and approving the magistrate’s decision to grant the CP O. Son’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, is

affirmed. Judgment affirmed.5

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the manda te, pursuant to App.R. 27. Immediately upon the filing hereof, this docum ent shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22 (E). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. Costs taxed to Appellant.

BETH WHITMORE FOR THE COURT

BELFANCE, P. J. DICKINSON, J. CONCUR

APPEARANCES: JESSE F. SWARTZ, V, pro se, Appellant. MICHAEL A. CRETELLA, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.