[Cite as Tate v. Prime Auto Sales, L.L.C. , 2021-Ohio-4417.]

COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

VALENCIA L. TATE JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellan t Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. -vs- Case No. 2021CA00036 PRIME AUTO SALES, LLC Defendant-Appellee O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appe al from the City of Canton Munici pal Court, Case No. 2020-CVI-4547

JUDGMENT: Dismissed DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 14, 2021

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellan t For Defendant-Appellee VALENCIA L. TATE PRIME AUTO SALES, LLC 1080 E. 167 th 12823 Cleveland, N.W. Cleveland, Ohio 44110 Uniontown, Ohio 44685-8084Hoffman, P.J. {¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Valencia Tate appeals the March 23, 2021 Ju dgment Entry entered by the Canton Municipal Court, which overruled he r objections to the magistrate’s March 11, 2020 decision and approved said decision as order of the court. Defendant-appellee is Prime Auto Sales, LLC. 1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2 {¶2} On November 13, 2020, Appellant filed a pro se complaint in the Canton Municipal Court, naming Appellee as defendant and seeking $2,40 0.00 in damages. Appellant alleged Appellee sold her an undriveable 2008 Chrysle r Sebring. {¶3} The magistrate conducted a hearing on February 25, 2021. Via D ecision filed March 11, 2021, the magistrate dismissed Appellant’s comp laint and entered judgment in favor of Appellee. Appellant filed an objection to the magistrate’s decision on March 23, 2021. Via Judgment Entry filed March 23, 2021, th e trial court overruled Appellant’s objections and approved the magistrate’s decision a s order of the court. {¶4} Appellant filed the instant appeal from the March 23, 2021 Judg ment Entry. {¶5} We begin by noting Appellant has failed to comply with App.R. 1 6, which provides:

Brief of the Appellant . The appellant shall include in its brief, under the headings and in the order indicated, all of the following: (1) A table of contents, with page references.

1 Appellee has not filed a Brief in this matter. 2 A rendition of the facts is unnecessary to our resolution of t his Appeal.(2) A table of cases alphabetically arranged, statutes, and ot her authorities cited, with references to the pages of the brief wh ere cited. (3) A statement of the assignments of error presented for revi ew, with reference to the place in the record where each error is reflec ted. (4) A statement of the issues presented for review, with refer ences to the assignments of error to which each issue relates. (5) A statement of the case briefly describing the nature of t he case, the course of proceedings, and the disposition in the court bel ow. (6) A statement of facts relevant to the assignments of error presented for review, with appropriate references to the record in

accordance with divisi on (D) of this rule. (7) An argument containing the contentions of the appellant wi th respect to each assignment of error presented for review and th e reasons in support of the contentions, with citations to the authoritie s, statutes, and parts of the record on which appellant relies. The argument may be preceded by a summary. (8) A conclusion briefly stating the precise relief sought.

{¶6} Appellant's brief does not satisfy the requirements of App. 16( A); therefore, her brief is noncompliant. Compliance with the above-stated rul e is mandatory. Zanesville

v. Robinson , 5th Dist. Muskingum App. No. 09-CA-39, 2010-Ohio-4843, ¶ 26. “It is not the function of this court to construct a foundation for [an ap pellant's] claims; failure to comply with the rules governing practice in the appellate court is a tactic which is ordinarilyfatal.” Musleve v. Musleve , 5th Dist. Stark App. No. 2007CA00314, 2008-Ohio-3961, ¶ 21. Such deficiencies permit this court to dismiss Appellant's appeal. State v. Darby , 5th Dist. Richland App. No. 2019 CA 0013, 2019-Ohio-2186, ¶¶ 21-24. {¶7} Further, Appellant failed to file a transcript of the February 25, 2021 hearing as required by App.R. 9(B). When portions of the transcript nec essary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing cour t has nothing to pass upon and thus the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court's proceedings, and affirm. Knapp v. Edwards Lab. (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 400 N.E.2d 384. Because Appellant has failed to provide this Court with th e transcript, we must presume the regularity of the proceedings below and affirm, pur suant to the directive set

forth above in Knapp, supra. {¶8} Because we find Appellant's brief in derogation of App.R. 16, w e dismiss her appeal for want of prosecution pursuant to App.R. 18(C) and Loc.App.R. 5(B). {¶9} Appellant's appeal is dismissed.

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