[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Franks v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. , Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-711.]

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 -711
T HE S TATE EX REL
. F RANKS , A PPELLANT , v . O HIO A DULT P AROLE A UTHORITY

ET AL ., A PPELLEES
. [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Franks v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. , Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-711.] Mandamus—A motion for relief from judgmen t may not be used as a means to litigate an argument that has been waived—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 2019-0603—Submitted Octobe r 22, 2019—Decided March 4, 2020 .)

A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals fo r Franklin County, No. 18AP-390.

________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Appellant, Jerry Franks, appeals th e Tenth District Court of Ap peals’ denial of his motion for relief from the judgment dismissing hi s mandamus action against appellees the Ohio Adu lt Parole Authority and the Burea u of Sentence Computation (collectively, “the APA”). We affirm.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 Background {¶ 2} On May 31, 2018, Franks, an inmate at the Pickaway Correctional Institution, filed a complaint fo r a writ of mandamus against t he APA in the Tenth District Court of Appeals. Franks alleged that he had been con victed of aggravated murder with a firearm specification and had been sentenced in 1 999 to an aggregate prison sentence of 23 years to life. According to Franks, he s hould have been eligible for parole in 2019, but the APA has his first hearing scheduled for 2024.
The merits of Franks’s mandamus case are not before this court. {¶ 3} Franks did not pay the filing fee when he filed his complaint, and he
did not seek a waiver of that fee. See R.C. 2969.25(C) (an inmate seeking to waive the filing fee for a civil action must file an affidavit of wai ver, an affidavit of indigency, a statement of the balance in his inmate account for the preceding six months, and a statement that set s forth other assets of value). Based on this deficiency, on June 19, 2018, the magistrate for the court of a ppeals sua sponte
recommended that Franks’s complaint be dismissed. {¶ 4} Five days before the magistrat e’s recommendation, on June 14, 2 018, Franks executed an affidavit attesting that he was “void of ass ets and funds” and that “as a result, [he] c[ould] not give security for the filin g fee[] nor costs * * * by such prepayment or otherwise.” Franks failed to attach a state ment setting forth the
balance of his inmate account fro m the previous six months. Wh ile Franks claims to have submitted the affidavit in response to the magistrate’s recommendation, the affidavit actually preda tes the recommendation. {¶ 5} On September 20, 2018, the Tenth Dis trict Court of Appeals adop ted the recommendation of the magistrate and dismissed the complain t. The court of appeals specifically noted that no party had filed objections t o the magistrate’s
decision. {¶ 6} Four months later, on January 23, 2019, Franks filed a motion f or relief from judgment, pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B)(1) and (5). Fra nks argued that heJanuary Term, 2020

3 had never claimed to be indige nt and that the court of appeals erred when it adopted the magistrate’s recommendation to dismiss his complaint based on his failure to file any indigency documentati on. According to Franks, rather than assuming that he wished to claim indigent statu s, the magistrate should have given him an opportunity to pay the filing fee before recommending that his complaint be
dismissed. {¶ 7} The court of appeals denied Franks’s motion for relief from jud gment on March 26, 2019. The court held t hat Franks’s failure to fil e objections to the magistrate’s decision barred him from asserting that the court of appeals committed any error when it adopted the magistrate’s recommendation. Fra nks timely appealed. Analysis {¶ 8} The issue in this appeal is not whether Franks is entitled to a writ of mandamus. Nor is the issue whether the court of appeals proper ly dismissed Franks’s complaint in the first instance. Rather, the only iss ue in this case is whether the court of appeals pr operly denied Franks’s motion fo r relief from judgment. {¶ 9} Civ.R. 53 authorizes courts of re cord to appoint magistrates to assist
them. See Civ.R. 53(A) and (C)(1). When a matter is referred to a magis trate for decision, the magistrate is requi red to prepare a written decis ion. Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(i) and (iii). A party who disagrees with the magis trate’s decision has 14 days to file objections. Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i). A party’s failure to file objections to a magistrate’s deci sion has consequences:

Except for a claim of plain erro r, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not speci fically designated as a finding ofS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 fact or conclusion of law * * *, unl ess the party has objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).

Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv). Thus, in a civil case before a trial c ourt, when a party fails to file objections to a magistra te’s decision, that party waive s the right to later assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any of the ma gistrate’s findings
and conclusions. See, e.g., J.S. v. T.S. , 5th Dist. Knox No. 16CA18, 2017-Ohio1042, ¶ 21; Settlers Walk Home Owners Assn. v. Phoenix Settlers Walk, Inc. , 12th
Dist. Warren Nos. CA2014- 09-116, CA2014-09-117, CA2014-09-118, 2015-Ohio4821, ¶ 30. {¶ 10} This rule also applies in cases that commence as original actio ns in the courts of appeals and proceed to this court as appeals of r ight. State ex rel. Sautter v. Grey , 117 Ohio St.3d 465, 2008-Ohio-1444, 884 N.E.2d 1062, ¶ 11 (“T he Rules of Civil Procedure are generally applicable in original a ctions for extraordinary writs”). The Tenth District Court of Appeals, fo r example, has expressly incorporated the terms of Civ.R. 53 into its local ru les. See Loc.R. 13(M)(1) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals. And when a pa rty to an original action in the Tenth District fails to object to a magistrate’s recommendation and the court of appeals adopts it, that party waives his right to rais e an argument pertaining
to that recommendation on a ppeal to this court. See, e.g., State ex rel. Muhammad
v. State , 133 Ohio St.3d 508, 2012-Ohio-4767, 979 N.E.2d 296, ¶ 3. {¶ 11} As Franks correctly notes in his first proposition of law, the application of Civ.R. 53 to his case prohibits him from raising on appeal any arguments he failed to preserve by filing objections to the mag istrate’s decision; it does not expressly bar him from making those arguments in a mot ion seeking relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B). However, Franks’s argument, if accepted, would undermine Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b )(i), which requires objection s to a magistrate’s decision to be filed within 14 days of the filing of the decisi on. Franks’s theoryJanuary Term, 2020

5 would eliminate that time requirement by permitting a party to file objections to a magistrate’s decision at any time, simply by captioning the ple ading as a “motion for relief from judgment.” We a void interpretations that would cause one provision
of the Rules of Civil Procedur e to conflict with another. See State ex rel. Natl. Emp. Benefit Servs. v. Cuyahoga Ct y. Court of Common Pleas , 49 Ohio St.3d 49, 50, 550 N.E.2d 941 (1990). {¶ 12} We therefore reject Franks’s suggestion, in his first propositi on of law, that he may use Civ.R. 60(B) to resurrect an argument that he failed to make within the time frame permitted by rule. {¶ 13} Franks’s second proposition of law raises his argument on the m erits, namely that the court of appeals erred when it dismissed his co mplaint because he was not seeking to waive the filing fees, and therefore the cou rt of appeals should have given him an opportunity to pay the fees before dismissing his complaint for a writ of mandamus. As noted, Fr anks has waived this argument, and we reject his second proposition of law on that basis. {¶ 14} In his third proposition of law, Franks asserts that R.C. 2969. 25(C) violates his constitutional right to due process. Franks waive d this argument by failing to raise it in the court of appeals. See State ex rel. Chagrin Falls v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Commrs. , 96 Ohio St.3d 400, 2002-Ohio-4906, 775 N.E.2d 512, ¶ 15 (in mandamus action, failure to raise constitutional claims in the court of appeals constitutes a waiver). We theref ore reject Franks’s third prop osition of law. Judgment affirmed.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , and
S TEWART , JJ., concur.
F RENCH , J., not participating.

_________________ Jerry Franks, pro se.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

6 Dave Yost, Attorney General, and George Horvath, Assistant Atto rney General, for appellees.

_________________