Court Opinion

ID: 9378840
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-13 18:07:09.345669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:09.383951
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Moyer v. Robinson, 2023-Ohio-764.]

               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                          ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 LAKE COUNTY

CHRISTY MOYER,                                   CASE NO. 2022-L-043

                Petitioner-Appellee,
                                                 Civil Appeal from the
        -v-                                      Court of Common Pleas

JASON ROBINSON,
                                                 Trial Court No. 2021 CS 001336
                Respondent-Appellant.

                                              OPINION

                                     Decided: March 13, 2023
                                       Judgment: Affirmed

Christy Moyer, pro se, c/o Timothy H. Snyder, Esq. (Agent for service only), P.O. Box
386, Burton, OH 44021 (Petitioner-Appellee).

Jason Robinson, pro se, 103 Long Hollow Drive, Etna, OH 43062 (Respondent-
Appellant).

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.

        {¶1}    Appellant, Jason Robinson (“Mr. Robinson”), appeals the judgment of the

Lake County Court of Common Pleas adopting the magistrate’s granting of a civil stalking

protection order (“CSPO”) against him and in favor of appellee, Christy Moyer (“Ms.

Moyer”), and her two minor children.

        {¶2}    Mr. Robinson raises eight assignments of error, which we review collectively

and out of order.

        {¶3}    In his first and second assignments of error, Mr. Robinson contends that the

magistrate erred by failing to disclose that he would be taking an extended leave of
absence, thereby denying Mr. Robinson his right to object to proceeding with the CSPO

hearing.

       {¶4}   In his seventh assignment of error, Mr. Robinson contends that the

magistrate improperly led Ms. Moyer’s testimony during the CSPO hearing, which

resulted in her providing answers that she may not have otherwise provided.

       {¶5}   In his third, fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth assignments of error, Mr. Robinson

challenges the magistrate’s factual findings following the CSPO hearing.

       {¶6}   After a careful review of the record and pertinent law, we find as follows:

       {¶7}   (1) With respect to his first and second assignments of error, Mr. Robinson

fails to cite any legal authority that would support a finding that the magistrate’s alleged

actions constituted prejudicial error that would require reversal of the CSPO. Thus, he

has failed to affirmatively demonstrate error on appeal.

       {¶8}   (2) With respect to his seventh assignment of error, Mr. Robinson did not

raise this argument in his objections below, nor did he file a transcript of the proceedings

before the magistrate in support of his objections. He also does not assert a claim of

plain error on appeal. Because this court cannot consider the transcript Mr. Robinson

filed with the record on appeal, Mr. Robinson cannot demonstrate error.

       {¶9}   (3) With respect to his third, fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth assignments of

error, since Mr. Robinson failed to file a transcript of the proceedings before the

magistrate with his objections in accordance with Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d)(iv), he is prohibited

from challenging the magistrate’s factual findings on appeal.

       {¶10} Thus, we affirm the judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas.

                                              2

Case No. 2022-L-043
                          Substantive and Procedural History

       {¶11} Ms. Moyer and Mr. Robinson are cousins. At all relevant times, Ms. Moyer

resided with her two minor children in Lake County, Ohio, while Mr. Robinson resided

near Columbus.

       {¶12} According to Ms. Moyer, she and her children maintained a close friendship

with Mr. Robinson for a period of time. In October 2021, Ms. Moyer told him to stay away

and leave her family alone due to his actions and behavior. Despite this request, Mr.

Robinson proceeded to text and call Ms. Moyer over one hundred times.

       {¶13} On November 8, 2021, Ms. Moyer was cleaning her windows and observed

Mr. Robinson pull his vehicle into the parking lot of her residence, despite the fact that he

lived a couple of hours away. As soon as their eyes met, Mr. Robinson fled. Ms. Moyer

alleged that Mr. Robinson’s actions caused her and her children mental distress.

       {¶14} On November 12, 2021, Ms. Moyer filed a pro se petition in the Lake County

Court of Common Pleas requesting a CSPO pursuant to R.C. 2903.214 in favor of herself

and her children. The magistrate granted Ms. Moyer an ex parte CSPO, effective until

February 12, 2022. The trial court scheduled an evidentiary hearing for November 30,

2021. The clerk of courts issued service to Mr. Robinson. Both parties appeared and

testified at the CSPO hearing.

       {¶15} On February 11, 2022, the magistrate filed an order extending the ex parte

CSPO until March 1, 2022, so that he could finish writing his decision. On March 1, 2022,

the magistrate filed another order extending the ex parte CSPO until March 11, 2022, for

the same reason.

       {¶16} On March 10, 2022, the magistrate filed a decision finding that Ms. Moyer

proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Robinson engaged in menacing by
                                             3

Case No. 2022-L-043
stalking. The magistrate found that Ms. Moyer was “credible and sincere throughout” the

full hearing; that Mr. Robinson was “not credible”; and that “his testimony lacked

consistency and failed to fully explain the circumstances.” The magistrate granted a

CSPO in favor of Ms. Moyer and her children and against Mr. Robinson, effective until

March 1, 2025. On the same date, the trial court filed a judgment entry adopting the

magistrate’s decision and granting the CSPO in accordance with the magistrate’s

recommendations.

       {¶17} On March 23, 2022, Mr. Robinson filed written objections along with

documentation. He did not file a transcript of the evidence submitted to the magistrate or

an affidavit of that evidence pursuant to Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d)(iv). On April 18, 2022, the

trial court filed a judgment entry overruling Mr. Robinson’s objections.1

       {¶18} Mr. Robinson filed a notice of appeal and subsequently ordered a copy of

the transcript of proceedings held before the magistrate, which the court reporter

prepared and filed. He asserts the following eight assignments of error:

       {¶19} “[1.] THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LAKE COUNTY SPECIFICALLY

[the magistrate] and [the trial court judge] court committed prejudicial error in granting

plaintiff-appellees’, CHRISTY MOYER and children [names redacted], motion for

summary judgment based upon its opinion that R.C. 2903.214 was warranted. [The

magistrate] made a critical error in turn denying defendant Jason A. Robinson his right to

object by not disclosing critical information that [the magistrate] would be taking an

extended medical leave absence that the defendant would have objected to prior to

asking the defendant if he was ready to proceed with the hearing?

1. The trial court expressly noted that the magistrate erroneously listed November 8, 2021, rather than
November 12 as the date Ms. Moyer filed her petition but found it had no substantive impact.
                                                  4

Case No. 2022-L-043
       {¶20} “[2.] THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LAKE COUNTY SPECIFICALLY

[the magistrate] and [the trial court judge] court committed prejudicial error in granting

plaintiff-appellees’, CHRISTY MOYER and children [names redacted], motion for

summary judgment based upon its opinion that R.C. 2903.214 was warranted. Did [the

magistrate] deny the defendant Jason A. Robinson his right to object to the fact that [the

magistrate] would not make his recommendations to [the trial judge] until after taking an

extended medical leave of absence until his return in mid January of 2020?

       {¶21} “[3.] THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LAKE COUNTY SPECIFICALLY

[the magistrate] and [the trial court judge] court committed prejudicial error in granting

plaintiff-appellees’, CHRISTY MOYER and children [names redacted], motion for

summary judgment based upon its opinion that R.C. 2903.214 was warranted. Did [the

magistrate] provide [the trial judge] factual information in his Facts and Findings that [the

trial judge] signed off granting the CPSO?

       {¶22} “[4.] THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LAKE COUNTY SPECIFICALLY

[the magistrate] and [the trial court judge] court committed prejudicial error in granting

plaintiff-appellees’, CHRISTY MOYER and children [names redacted], motion for

summary judgment based upon its opinion that R.C. 2903.214 was warranted. Did [the

magistrate] make errors in his facts and findings because he did not review the case and

make his recommendations to [the trial judge] upon his return in mid January as he stated

he would?

       {¶23} “[5.] THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LAKE COUNTY SPECIFICALLY

[the magistrate] and [the trial court judge] court committed prejudicial error in granting

plaintiff-appellees’, CHRISTY MOYER and children [names redacted], motion for

summary judgment based upon its opinion that R.C. 2903.214 was warranted. * * * How
                                             5

Case No. 2022-L-043
could the defendant have been at the Plaintiff’s residence when the proof shows he was

in Columbus when the plaintiff says she saw him?

       {¶24} “[6.] THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LAKE COUNTY SPECIFICALLY

[the magistrate] and [the trial court judge] court committed prejudicial error in granting

plaintiff-appellees’, CHRISTY MOYER and children [names redacted], motion for

summary judgment based upon its opinion that R.C. 2903.214 was warranted. Did the

Plaintiff lie about seeing the defendant at her residence on November 8th 2021?

       {¶25} “[7.] THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LAKE COUNTY SPECIFICALLY

[the magistrate] and [the trial court judge] court committed prejudicial error in granting

plaintiff-appellees’, CHRISTY MOYER and children [names redacted], motion for

summary judgment based upon its opinion that R.C. 2903.214 was warranted. Did [the

magistrate] lead the Plaintiff in his line of questioning during her testimony to allow her to

provide answers that she may not have provided on her own?

       {¶26} “[8.] THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LAKE COUNTY SPECIFICALLY

[the magistrate] and [the trial court judge] court committed prejudicial error in granting

plaintiff-appellees’, CHRISTY MOYER and children [names redacted], motion for

summary judgment based upon its opinion that R.C. 2903.214 was warranted. Did [the

magistrate] and [the trial court] overlook the evidence the plaintiff submitted supporting

her testimony that her male friend answered one of the restricted calls which the plaintiff

says the defendant identifies himself as the caller of the restricted calls?” [Sic throughout.]

       {¶27} Ms. Moyer did not file an appellee’s brief.

                                    CSPO Proceedings

       {¶28} We begin by summarizing the nature of the underlying proceedings.

Pursuant to R.C. 2903.214(C)(1), a person may seek a protection order based upon an
                                              6

Case No. 2022-L-043
“allegation that the respondent * * * engaged in a violation of [R.C. 2903.211, i.e.,

menacing by stalking] against the person to be protected by the protection order * * *.”

R.C. 2903.211, in turn, provides, “No person by engaging in a pattern of conduct shall

knowingly cause another person to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to

the other person or a family or household member of the other person or cause mental

distress to the other person or a family or household member of the other person * * *.”

R.C. 2903.211(A)(1). A “pattern of conduct” means “two or more actions or incidents

closely related in time * * *.” R.C. 2903.211(D)(1). The petitioner must demonstrate, by

a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she is entitled to a CSPO. Cooper v. Manta,

11th Dist. Lake No. 2011-L-035, 2012-Ohio-867, ¶ 30.

       {¶29} The proceedings for granting a CSPO are governed by Civ.R. 65.1. Post v.

Leopardi, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2019-T-0061, 2020-Ohio-2890, ¶ 10. A trial court may

refer CSPO proceedings to a magistrate. Civ.R. 65.1(F)(1). When a petitioner requests

an ex parte CSPO, the magistrate shall conduct the ex parte hearing and, upon

conclusion of the hearing, deny or grant an ex parte CSPO. Civ.R. 65.1(F)(2)(a). The

magistrate shall then conduct a full hearing and, upon conclusion of the hearing, deny or

grant a protection order. Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(a).

       {¶30} The trial 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 its face. Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(c)(ii). The trial court may also modify

or reject the magistrate’s order. Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(c)(iii). The trial court’s adoption,

modification, or rejection shall be effective when signed and filed with the clerk. Civ.R.

65.1(F)(3)(c)(v).

                                              7

Case No. 2022-L-043
         {¶31} A party may file written objections to the trial court’s adoption, modification,

or rejection, or any terms of the protection order, within fourteen days of the court’s filing

of the order. Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d)(i). The party filing objections has the burden of showing

that an error of law or other defect is evident on the face of the order, or that the credible

evidence of record is insufficient to support the granting or denial of the protection order,

or that the magistrate abused the magistrate’s discretion in including or failing to include

specific terms in the protection order. Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d)(iii).

         {¶32} 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. Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d)(iv). The objecting party shall file the transcript or

affidavit with the court within thirty days after filing objections unless the court extends the

time in writing for preparation of the transcript or other good cause. Id. 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. Id.

         {¶33} With the above legal requirements in mind, we address Mr. Robinson’s

assignments of error. For ease of discussion, we do so collectively and out of order.

                                       Right to Object

         {¶34} We collectively address Mr. Robinson’s first and second assignments of

error.

         {¶35} In both, Mr. Robinson contends that the magistrate erred by denying his

right to object to proceeding with the CSPO hearing. According to Mr. Robinson, the

magistrate did not disclose that he would be taking an extended leave of absence and

that he would not issue a decision until after his return.

                                               8

Case No. 2022-L-043
       {¶36} Mr. Robinson fails to cite any legal authority that would support a finding

that the magistrate’s alleged actions constituted prejudicial error that would require

reversal of the CSPO. An appellant carries the burden of affirmatively demonstrating

error on appeal. See App.R. 9 and App.R. 16(A)(7); State ex rel. Fulton v. Halliday, 142

Ohio St. 548, 549, 53 N.E.2d 521 (1944). “‘If an argument exists that can support [an]

assignment of error, it is not this court’s duty to root it out.’” Lloyd v. Thornsberry, 11th

Dist. Portage No. 2017-P-0029, 2018-Ohio-2893, ¶ 15, quoting Cardone v. Cardone, 9th

Dist. Summit No. 18349, 1998 WL 224934, *8 (May 6, 1998). Although Mr. Robinson is

a pro se civil litigant, he is bound by the same rules and procedures as litigants who retain

counsel. Id. at ¶ 16.

       {¶37} Mr. Robinson further contends that the magistrate’s delays resulted in his

issuance of incorrect factual findings. To the extent Mr. Robinson is challenging the

magistrate’s factual findings, we address that issue below.

       {¶38} Accordingly, Mr. Robinson’s first and second assignments of error are

without merit.

                                   Witness Questioning

       {¶39} We next address Mr. Robinson’s seventh assignment of error.

       {¶40} Mr. Robinson contends that the magistrate improperly led Ms. Moyer’s

testimony during the CSPO hearing, which resulted in her providing answers that she

may not have otherwise provided.

       {¶41} Mr. Robinson did not raise this argument in his objections below. There is

no provision in Civ.R. 65.1 authorizing an appellate court to review for plain error in the

absence of a specific objection, as there is in Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv) (“Except for a claim

of plain error, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual
                                              9

Case No. 2022-L-043
finding or legal conclusion * * * unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion

* * *”). See J.S. v. D.E., 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 17 MA 0032, 2017-Ohio-7507, ¶ 21.

       {¶42} Even if we had such authority, however, Mr. Robinson does not assert a

claim of plain error on appeal. “Where the appellant in a civil case does not properly

invoke the plain-error doctrine, it cannot meet its burden on appeal and [a reviewing court]

will not sua sponte undertake a plain-error analysis on its behalf.” Cable Busters, LLC v.

Mosley, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190364, 2020-Ohio-3442, ¶ 8.

       {¶43} Further, even if we reached the merits of Mr. Robinson’s argument, our

review would be fatally limited. When the trial court ruled on his objections, Mr. Robinson

had not complied with Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d)(iv) by filing a transcript or affidavit regarding

the evidence or by obtaining leave to supplement his objections after a transcript was

prepared. As one court has aptly explained, “[i]n applying the analogous transcript

requirement found in Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii), [courts have] held that if the transcript is later

submitted with the record on appeal, it may not be considered because the appellate

court’s review is limited to the evidence before the trial court. * * * We see no reason why

the rule would not apply with equal force to an appellant’s analogous duty under Civ.R.

65.1(F)(3)(d)(iv) to provide the trial court with the transcript of the proceedings in support

of his objections * * *.” J.S. v. D.L., 2018-Ohio-4775, 125 N.E.3d 216, ¶ 9 (8th Dist.). “A

reviewing court cannot add matter to the record before it, which was not a part of the trial

court’s proceedings, and then decide the appeal on the basis of the new matter.” State

v. Ishmail, 54 Ohio St.2d 402, 377 N.E.2d 500 (1978), paragraph one of the syllabus.

       {¶44} Because this court cannot consider the transcript Mr. Robinson filed with

the record on appeal, Mr. Robinson cannot demonstrate error with respect to the

magistrate’s questioning of Ms. Moyer.
                                              10

Case No. 2022-L-043
       {¶45} Accordingly, Mr. Robinson’s seventh assignment of error is without merit.

                                        Factual Findings

       {¶46} Finally, we collectively address Mr. Robinson’s third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and

eighth assignments of error, where he challenges the magistrate’s factual findings.

       {¶47} Mr. Robinson contends that the magistrate’s factual findings contained

errors (third and fourth assigned errors); that the evidence shows he was in Columbus at

the time Ms. Moyer allegedly saw him at her residence (fifth assigned error); that Ms.

Moyer lied about seeing him at her residence (sixth assigned error); and that the trial court

overlooked certain evidence (eighth assigned error).

       {¶48} Courts have held that an appellant is prohibited from challenging the

magistrate’s factual findings unless the appellant files a transcript of the magistrate’s

hearing with the trial court with his or her objections in accordance with Civ.R.

65.1(F)(3)(d)(iv). See J.S., supra, at ¶ 10; see also Slepsky v. Slepsky, 11th Dist. Lake

No. 2016-L-032, 2016-Ohio-8429, ¶ 20. Since Mr. Robinson failed to comply with this

requirement, his arguments regarding the magistrate’s factual findings are barred. See

J.S. at ¶ 11.

       {¶49} Accordingly, Mr. Robinson’s third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth

assignments of error are without merit.

       {¶50} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Lake County Court of

Common Pleas is affirmed.

MATT LYNCH, J.,

EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,

concur.
                                             11

Case No. 2022-L-043