Court Opinion

ID: 9899262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-16 16:10:55.169758+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:16.145229
License: Public Domain

[Cite as J.T. v. K.S., 2023-Ohio-4130.]

                                COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                              EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

J.T.,                                           :

                 Petitioner-Appellant,          :
                                                                  No. 112752
                 v.                             :

K.S.,                                           :

                 Respondent-Appellee.           :

                                 JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 16, 2023

             Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                                 Case No. CV-23-978255

                                          Appearances:

                 J.T., pro se

MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J.:

                 Appellant-petitioner J.T., pro se, appeals from the trial court’s

May 9, 2023 order denying his petition for a civil protection order. After a review of

the pertinent law, we affirm.

                   On April 19, 2023, appellant, pro se, filed a petition for a civil stalking

protection order under R.C. 2903.214 against appellee-respondent K.S. An ex parte
hearing was held and a temporary protection order was granted the same day.

Appellee was served with the order, and the matter proceeded to a full hearing

before a magistrate on May 3, 2023. Appellant, pro se, and appellee, represented by

counsel, appeared for the full hearing. After the hearing, the magistrate issued a

decision denying appellant’s petition. The order stated that the parties had 14 days

from its date, May 5, 2023, to file objections to it. On May 9, 2023, the trial court

adopted the magistrate’s decision. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on May 22,

2023. His sole assignment of error reads: “The trial court erred by not granting the

stalking protection order against [appellee] in Trial court on May 3rd 2023.”

               Civ.R. 65.1(A) governs petitions for civil protection stalking orders

brought under R.C. 2903.214. The rule provides, in part, that “[w]hen 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.” (Emphasis added.) Civ.R. 65(F)(3)(c)(ii). Thus, “the trial court need

only review the order itself before deciding whether to adopt, reject, or modify it.

Nothing within the language of Civ.R. 65.1 prohibits a trial court from

contemporaneously adopting a magistrate’s decision.” J.P. v. T.H., 9th Dist. Lorain

No. 14CA010715, 2016-Ohio-243, ¶ 13.

               Appellant failed to file objections to the trial court’s adoption of the

magistrate’s decision.   This court has held that “[a]n order entered by the court

under Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(c) is a final, appealable order, but written objections to this
order must be timely filed under Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d) prior to filing an appeal.

Civ.R. 65.1(G).” A.A. v. Z.A., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111529, 2023-Ohio-217, ¶ 12.

Without timely filed objections pursuant to Civ.R. 65.1(G), appellant waived any

argument challenging the trial court’s decision to deny the civil stalking protection

order on appeal. Therefore, we decline to address the merits of this appeal, and we

overrule appellant’s sole assignment of error.

              Judgment affirmed.

      It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.

      The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

      It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment

into execution.

      A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule

27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, JUDGE

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, P.J., and
EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J., CONCUR