[Cite as K.W. v. D.O., 2024-Ohio-2488.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

[K.W.]

 Appellee

v. 

[D.O.]

 Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

C.A. No. 30094

Trial Court Case No. 2024 CV 01251

(Civil Appeal from Common Pleas 

Court)

. . . . . . . . . . .

O P I N I O N

Rendered on June 28, 2024

. . . . . . . . . . . 

D.O., Pro Se Appellant

 

K.W., Pro Se Appellee

 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

HUFFMAN, J.

{¶ 1} D.O. appeals pro se from the March 25, 2024 order granting a civil stalking 

protection order (“CSPO”) against her and in favor of K.W. Because D.O. failed to file 

objections in the trial court as required by Civ.R. 65.1, we lack authority to consider this 
-2-

appeal. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Procedural History

{¶ 2} K.W. filed her Petition for a CSPO on February 28, 2024 and waived an ex 

parte hearing. The trial court set the matter for a full evidentiary hearing on March 19, 

2024, before the magistrate. No transcript of this hearing is part of the record on appeal. 

As noted above, the CSPO was issued on March 25, 2024, and it was electronically 

signed by the trial court judge. It stated, in part: “18. IF THE FULL HEARING 

PROCEEDING WAS REFERRED TO A MAGISTARTE, the Court has reviewed the 

magistrate’s granting of this order and finds no error of law or other defect evident on the 

face of the Order. Accordingly, the Court adopts the magistrate’s granting of this Order.”

Analysis

{¶ 3} “Litigants who choose to proceed pro se are presumed to know the law and 

correct procedure, and are held to the same standards as other litigants.” Yocum v. 

Means, 2d Dist. Darke No. 1576, 2002-Ohio-3803, ¶ 20. CSPOs are governed by R.C. 

2903.214, which provides for the issuance of protection orders against persons who are 

victims of menacing by stalking. Civ.R. 65.1 also governs petitions for CSPOs. Civ.R. 

65.1(F)(3)(c)(ii) states: “When a magistrate has denied or granted a protection order after 

a full hearing, the court may adopt the magistrate’s denial or granting of the protection 

order upon review of the order and a determination that there is no error of law or other 

defect evident on the face of the order.” Additionally, a “court’s adoption, modification, or 

rejection of a magistrate’s denial or granting of a protection order after a full hearing shall 

be effective when signed by the court and filed with the clerk.” Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(c)(v). 
-3-

{¶ 4} Here, the magistrate granted the CSPO, which was then signed by the court 

and filed with the clerk. The CSPO accordingly became a final appealable order pursuant 

to Civ.R. 65.1(G), which states:

Notwithstanding the provisions of any other rule, an order entered by the 

court under division (F)(3)(c) * * * of this rule is a final, appealable order. 

However, a party must timely file objections to such an order under division 

(F)(3)(d) of this rule prior to filing an appeal, and the timely filing of such 

objections shall stay the running of the time for appeal until the filing of the 

court’s ruling on the objections.

(Emphasis added.)

{¶ 5} In Curry v. Bettison, 2023-Ohio-1911, 216 N.E.3d 797, ¶ 67 (2d Dist.), we 

thoroughly discussed this issue and concluded that a party’s timely objections are a 

prerequisite to challenging a CSPO on appeal. We further clarified and summarized the 

proper analysis in a Civ.R. 65.1 appeal, holding as follows:

(1) [W]here litigants fail to comply with Civ.R. 65.1(G)’s requirement of filing 

objections, they cannot challenge the trial court’s decision on appeal, and 

the decision must be affirmed; (2) no issues that are raised, whether they 

are phrased as error or plain error, can be considered; (3) this court should 

not engage in any analysis that directly or indirectly involves the merits of 

the trial court order; * * *.

{¶ 6} D.O. did not file the required objections. Accordingly, she cannot challenge 

the CSPO on appeal, and we will not engage in any analysis of its merits. The judgment 
-4-

of the trial court is affirmed.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

WELBAUM, J. and LEWIS, J., concur.