Court Opinion

ID: 9954134
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 18:10:49.179171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:51.164894
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Geauga Cty. Bd. of Health v. Echols, 2024-Ohio-1117.]

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

GEAUGA COUNTY                                          CASE NO. 2024-G-0008
BOARD OF HEALTH, et al.,

                 Plaintiffs-Appellees,                 Civil Appeal from the
                                                       Court of Common Pleas
        - vs -

SELLIE ECHOLS,                                         Trial Court No. 2023 M 000463

                 Defendant,

ROBERT ECHOLS,

                 Defendant-Appellant.

                                        MEMORANDUM
                                          OPINION

                                      Decided: March 25, 2024
                                    Judgment: Appeal dismissed

James R. Flaiz, Geauga County Prosecutor, Courthouse Annex, 231 Main Street, Suite
3A, Chardon, OH 44024 (For Plaintiffs-Appellees).

R. Russell Kubyn, Kubyn & Ghaster, 8373 Mentor Avenue, Mentor, OH 44060 (For
Defendant-Appellant).

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.

        {¶1}     Appellant, Robert Echols, appeals from the February 9, 2024 judgment of

the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons discussed, we conclude

the judgment at issue is not final and therefore not appealable at this time. The appeal is

accordingly dismissed.
       {¶2}   In August 2023, appellees, the Geauga County Board of Health and the

Chardon Township Board of Trustees, filed a complaint for injunctive relief against

appellant and Sellie Echols for solid and hazardous waste violations along with township

zoning violations. During the pendency of the proceedings, appellant filed a motion to

remove and/or disqualify the magistrate asserting that the magistrate was prejudicial

against appellant’s counsel and cannot impartially preside over the case.

       {¶3}   The trial court subsequently denied the motion. Appellant appeals from that

judgment.

       {¶4}   It is well settled that an appellate court does not have jurisdiction to review

a lower court’s order that is not final. Noble v. Colwell, 44 Ohio St.3d 92, 96. For a

judgment to be final and appealable, it must satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2505.02.

See Children’s Hospital Med. Ctr. v. Tomaiko, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2011-P-0103, 2011-

Ohio-6838.

       {¶5}   Pursuant to R.C. 2505.02(B)(2), an order is final and appealable “if it affects

a substantial right made in a special proceeding.” A “[s]pecial proceeding” is “an action

or proceeding that is specially created by statute and that prior to 1853 was not denoted

as an action at law or a suit in equity.” R.C. 2505.02(A)(2). A substantial right is one that

“the United States Constitution, the Ohio Constitution, a statute, the common law, or a

rule of procedure entitles a person to enforce or protect.” R.C. 2505.02(A)(1).

       {¶6}   This court has stated that the denial of appellant’s motion to remove a

magistrate does not affect a substantial right. See Lindsey v. Lindsey, 11th Dist. Geauga

No. 2020-G-0250, 2020-G-3567.

                                             2

Case No. 2024-G-0008
         {¶7}   Furthermore, this court has concluded that an entry denying a motion to

recuse a magistrate is not immediately appealable where other issues are pending in the

trial court. In Aloi v. Enervest, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2011-P-0023, 2011-Ohio-5112, this

court stated that a “judgment entry overruling the motion to recuse a common pleas judge

and disqualify a magistrate is not a final appealable order.” Here, the claims raised in the

complaint have not yet been resolved.

         {¶8}   Accordingly, in the instant matter, we conclude the trial court’s judgment

denying the motion to remove and/or disqualify the magistrate is not a final, appealable

order.

         {¶9}   Appeal dismissed.

EUGENE A. LUCCI, P.J.,

JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,

concur.

                                             3

Case No. 2024-G-0008