Court Opinion

ID: 9380603
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-20 17:06:22.829018+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:26.348677
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Mickens v. Berry Global, Inc., 2023-Ohio-885.]

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

BRIAN MICKENS,                                            CASE NO. 2022-P-0066

                 Plaintiff-Appellant,
                                                          Civil Appeal from the
        - vs -                                            Court of Common Pleas

BERRY GLOBAL,
                                                          Trial Court No. 2022 CV 00599
                 Defendant-Appellee.

                                        MEMORANDUM
                                          OPINION

                                      Decided: March 20, 2023
                                    Judgment: Appeal dismissed

Brian Mickens, pro se, 1325 Riverview Street, N.W., Warren, OH 44485 (Plaintiff-
Appellant).

Anthony D. Dick and Kirsten B. Mooney, Fisher & Phillips LLP, 200 Public Square, Suite
4000, Cleveland, OH 44114 (For Defendant-Appellee).

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.

        {¶1}     On November 7, 2022, plaintiff-appellant, Brian Mickens (“Mr. Mickens”),

filed a pro se notice of appeal from a judgment of the Portage County Court of Common

Pleas, listing defendant Berry Global and non-party “ODJFS” as appellees.

        {¶2}     On December 15, 2022, this court filed a judgment entry dismissing ODJFS

as an appellee and overruling Mr. Mickens’ filing entitled “Motion of Appellant, Brian

Mickens to Adjudicate Claims Action,” which he had sent via email to the Portage County

Clerk of Courts.
       {¶3}   On January 17, 2023, this court filed a judgment entry striking filings that

Mr. Mickens sent via email to the clerk of courts on November 29, 2022, November 30,

2022, December 2, 2022, December 14, 2022, December 19, 2022, December 23, 2022,

and January 17, 2023. We instructed Mr. Mickens to file a merit brief within 14 days that

conforms to the requirements in App.R. 16 and Loc.R. 16, and we notified him that the

failure to do so would result in the dismissal of his appeal.

       {¶4}   On January 23, 2023, Mr. Mickens sent a purported merit brief to the clerk

of courts via email. On February 10, 2023, Berry Global filed a response, contending that

Mr. Mickens’ purported brief does not comply with App.R. 16, Loc.R. 16, or this court’s

January 17 judgment entry and requested dismissal.

       {¶5}   On February 17 and February 24, 2023, Mr. Mickens filed documents

entitled “Appelant Motion for Relief from Defendant Berry Global.” [sic.]

       {¶6}   Upon review, Mr. Mickens has failed to comply with the Ohio Rules of

Appellate Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, and this court’s January 17 judgment entry.

His purported brief does not contain a proper table of contents; a table of cases; a

statement of the case; a statement of facts supported by references to the record; any

assignments of error; any argument with citations to legal authority; or a statement of the

issues presented for review, in violation of App.R. 16(A) and Loc.R 16(B) and (C). Mr.

Mickens’ failure to comply wholly prevents any appellate review of this matter. This court

does not have a legal or ethical obligation to assert an argument for an appellant even if

an argument exists to support the appellant’s claim. In re Estate of Copeland, 11th Dist.

Lake No. 2018-L-082, 2018-Ohio-4271, ¶ 6. Although Mr. Mickens is proceeding pro se,

                                              2

Case No. 2022-P-0066
pro se litigants are bound by the same rules and procedures as those litigants who retain

counsel. Aston v. Aston, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2017-L-076, 2018-Ohio-908, ¶ 15.

      {¶7}   Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed pursuant to Loc.R. 16(E).         Mr.

Mickens’ motions “for relief” are overruled as moot.

JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J.,

EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,

concur.

                                            3

Case No. 2022-P-0066