[Cite as State v. Gardner, 2024-Ohio-1897.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

M.C., :

Plaintiff-Appellee, :

No. 113111

v. :

LARRY H. GARDNER, JR., :

Defendant-Appellant. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 16, 2024

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court

Domestic Relations Division

Case No. DV-21-387713

Appearances:

M.C., pro se.

Larry H. Gardner, Jr., pro se. 

ANITA LASTER MAYS, J.:

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Larry H. Gardner, Jr. (“Gardner”), appeals the 

trial court’s decision denying his motion objecting to the magistrate’s decision, 
denying his motion to terminate the civil protection order, and denying him leave 

to perfect his filing. We affirm the trial court’s decision.

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶2} Plaintiff-appellee, M.C., filed a motion to renew a domestic violence 

civil protection order (“DVCPO”) against Gardner on May 22, 2023. A hearing was 

held before a magistrate on June 5, 2023. Gardner was present for the hearing and 

participated. The magistrate informed both parties that M.C. would testify first 

because she had the burden of proof. The magistrate also explained to Gardner 

that he would have an opportunity to cross-examine M.C. and then have an 

opportunity to present his testimony and evidence. 

{¶3} At the end of the hearing, the magistrate stated:

The case is now considered heard and submitted which means I have 

all the evidence I can use as a basis for ruling on the motion. And so, 

that emergency order that’s in place, that’s going to stay in place until 

you receive that written decision. 

The written decision will replace that emergency order. If Petitioner 

has carried her burden, it will be in the form of a new order. If she has 

not, you will get a written decision stating that and dissolving that 

emergency order. 

Tr. 123–124.

{¶4} On June 9, 2023, four days after the trial, Gardner sent a letter to the 

magistrate who presided at the hearing, but Gardner did not inform the opposing 

party. The magistrate ruled that Gardner’s letter was an attempted ex parte 

communication with the magistrate. On June 20, 2023, Gardner filed a motion to 
vacate ex parte judgment for perfection of service and/or hearing on the matter. 

On June 23, 2023, the trial court denied his motion, stating:

Petitioner [M.C.] filed a Motion to Renew Domestic Violence Civil 

Protection Order (No. 460030) on May 23, 2023. Trial of that motion 

was held before the Magistrate on June 5. Respondent was present 

and participated in the trial. Four days after the trial, Respondent 

transmitted an ex parte communication to the Court, which was 

stricken. On June 20, 2023, Respondent filed this motion. On its face 

the motion is an attempt to introduce new or additional arguments 

two weeks after the trial has been concluded. This is impermissible 

and Respondent’s new or additional arguments must be disregarded. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion to Vacate 

Ex parte Judgment for Perfection of Service and/or Hearing on the 

Matter (No. 460817) is DENIED.

Judgment Entry No. 150358132 (June 23, 2023).

{¶5} On June 22, 2023, the magistrate issued a decision in response to the 

June 5, 2023 trial. The magistrate issued a DVCPO, and the trial court adopted 

the decision on the same day. On June 30, 2023, Gardner filed a praecipe to the 

court reporter for transcript of hearing and notice of payment of deposit but did 

not file any preliminary objections. On July 25, 2023, Gardner filed his objections 

to the protection order, objection of magistrate’s decision, motion to terminate 

civil protection order, and leave to perfect any timely filing deficiencies due to the 

unavailability of transcripts as required. On July 27, 2023, the trial court overruled 

Gardner’s objections in their entirety and stated that the protection order remains

in full force and effect. Judgment Entry No. 153552254 (July 27, 2023).
{¶6} The trial court, in its judgment entry, cited Civ.R. 65.1(F)(2)(d)(i),

which provides that a party objecting to a magistrate’s decision must file objections 

within 14 days of the decision. Gardner’s objections were due July 6, 2023, but he 

did not file them until July 25, 2023. Also, the record reflects that Gardner did not 

file preliminary objections that a party is permitted to file while transcripts are 

being prepared. The trial court ruled against Gardner and found his motions and 

objections untimely.

{¶7} Gardner filed this appeal assigning three errors for our review:

1. The trial court erred when it denied the appellant’s objection;

2. The trial court erred when it failed to allow the appellate leave 

to perfect his filing; and

3. The trial court erred when it ruled that the appellant was 

seeking more than one type of relief in the same motion.

II. Objection to the Magistrate’s Decision

{¶8} In Gardner’s first assignment of error, he argues that the trial court 

erred when it denied his objection to the magistrate’s decision. The rules governing 

civil protection order petitions are set forth in Civ.R. 65.1. The magistrate rendered 

a decision granting the DVCPO on June 22, 2023. According to Civ.R. 

65.1(F)(3)(d)(i): 

A party may file written objections to a court’s adoption, modification, 

or rejection of a magistrate’s denial or granting of a protection order 

after a full hearing, or any terms of such an order, within fourteen days 

of the court’s filing of the order. If any party timely files objections, 
any other party may also file objections not later than ten days after 

the first objections are filed. 

{¶9} Gardner claims that he filed his objection on June 30, 2023. But the 

record reveals that he instead filed a praecipe to the court reporter for transcript 

of hearing and a notice of payment of deposit. Gardner could have filed preliminary 

objections without a transcript. However, the docket does not reflect that Gardner 

filed any preliminary objections to the magistrate’s decision. “If a party files timely 

objections prior to the date on which a transcript is prepared, the party may seek 

leave of court to supplement the objections.” Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d)(iv). The record 

does reflect that Gardner filed his objections with the trial court on July 25, 2023. 

Gardner’s objections were due to the court on July 5, 2023. As such, Gardner’s 

July 25, 2023 objection to the magistrate’s decision was untimely as defined by 

Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d)(i).

{¶10} Additionally, “a party must timely file objections to such an order 

under division (F)(3)(d) of this rule prior to filing an appeal * * *.” Without timely 

filed objections pursuant to Civ.R. 65.1(G), Gardner waived any argument 

challenging the magistrate’s decision and the trial court’s adoption of the DVCPO 

on appeal. Therefore, we decline to address the merits. See A.A. v. Z.A., 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 111529, 2023-Ohio-217, ¶ 14.

III. Leave to Perfect Filing
[Cite as State v. Gardner, 2024-Ohio-1897.]

{¶11} In Gardner’s second assignment of error, he contends that the trial 

court erred when it failed to allow him leave to perfect his filing. Specifically, 

Gardner argues that he filed his objection to the magistrate’s decision on 

June 30, 2023, and a copy of the transcript was not available until July 21, 2023. 

The transcript was made available to Gardner on July 19, 2023. Gardner argues 

that because he filed a timely preliminary objection, the trial court erred by not 

allowing him leave to perfect his filing to include the transcript. 

{¶12} Gardner’s arguments are misplaced. Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d)(iv) states, 

in part: “Objections based upon evidence of record shall be supported by a 

transcript of all the evidence submitted to the magistrate or an affidavit of that 

evidence if a transcript is not available.” However, “[i]f a party files timely 

objections prior to the date on which a transcript is prepared, the party may seek 

leave of court to supplement the objections.” Id. The record does not reflect that 

Gardner filed a timely objection prior to the date on which the transcript was 

prepared. Thus, the trial court’s decision dismissing Gardner’s motion for leave to 

perfect his filing was not in error.

{¶13} Therefore, Gardner’s second assignment of error is overruled.

IV. Multiple Motions

{¶14} In Gardner’s third assignment of error, he argues that the trial court 

erred when it ruled that he was seeking more than one type of relief in the same 

motion and overruled the entire motion. The trial court stated in its judgment 
entry: “Respondent seeks to terminate the DVCPO and to be exempted from time 

limits for filing, in addition to objection to the Magistrate’s decision. Only his 

objection is properly before the Court; his other requests for relief cannot be 

heard.” 

{¶15} In Gardner’s brief, he does not deny that he moved the trial court to 

hear several issues on a single motion in violation of Loc.R. 15(A)(1) of the Court 

of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Domestic Relations Division, which states, 

in part: “A party seeking more than one type of relief shall file a separate motion 

for each type of relief sought.” Instead, he argues that the trial court did not follow 

its own rule when it failed to grant him leave. 

{¶16} Gardner contends that under Loc.R. 27(1)(c) and (e) of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Domestic Relations Division, the trial court

was statutorily bound to grant him automatic leave and failure to do so resulted in 

several types of relief being sought in one motion.

{¶17} Loc.R. 27(1) of the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, 

Domestic Relations Division, states:

c. A party filing objections that require a transcript must file his or her 

objections within the fourteen (14) day time period set forth above, 

and must file a Notice of Intent to supplement objections after the 

transcript has been completed, for which leave will automatically be 

granted; and

* * *
e. A party may have an additional fourteen (14) days following the 

completion of the transcript within which to file supplemental 

objections, provided that notice was filed as set forth in (c) above.

{¶18} As previously stated in assignment of error two, the record does not 

reflect that Gardner filed a timely objection to the magistrate’s decision. Nor does 

the record reflect that Gardner filed a notice of intent to supplement objections 

after the transcript had been completed. 

{¶19} Therefore, Gardner’s third assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶20} Judgment affirmed.

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 issue out of this court directing the 

common pleas court, domestic relations division, 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.

________________________

ANITA LASTER MAYS, JUDGE

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, P.J., and 

MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR