Case Name: The State ex rel. Booher, Appellant, v. Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc. et al., Appellees
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 2000-02-23
Citations: 88 Ohio St. 3d 52
Docket Number: No. 98-1503
Parties: The State ex rel. Booher, Appellant, v. Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc. et al., Appellees.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 88
Pages: 52–54

Head Matter:
The State ex rel. Booher, Appellant, v. Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc. et al., Appellees.
[Cite as State ex rel. Booher v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 52.]
(No. 98-1503
Submitted January 26, 2000
Decided February 23, 2000.)
Sharon E. Deal, for appellant.
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., and Robert A. Minor, for appellee Honda of America Mfg., Inc.
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Michael A. Vanderhorst, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Claimant's arguments before us derive directly from the conclusions of law contained in the magistrate's decision. Claimant, however, did not timely object to those conclusions as Civ.R. 53(E)(3) requires. Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(b) prohibits a party from "assigning] as error on appeal the court's adoption of any finding of fact or conclusion of law unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion under this rule."
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.