Summary
The Tenth District Court of Appeals of Ohio dismissed an appeal from a civil stalking protection order. The court held that the appellant was required under Ohio Civil Rule 65.1(G) to file timely objections to the trial court’s adoption of the magistrate’s decision before filing an appeal, and the appellant failed to do so.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the appellate court could reach appellant's challenges to the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence supporting the civil stalking protection order when appellant failed to file timely objections to the trial court's adoption of the magistrate's decision.
- Whether Civ.R. 65.1(G) requires dismissal of an appeal when the appellant files an appeal before filing objections to the trial court's adoption of a magistrate's ruling in a civil stalking protection order proceeding.
Holdings
- Under Civ.R. 65.1(G), a party must file objections to the trial court's adoption of a magistrate's ruling before filing an appeal, and failure to do so requires dismissal of the appeal.
Key quotations
“While an order entered by the court under Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(c) or (e) is a final, appealable order, pursuant to a July 1, 2016 amendment to Civ.R. 65.1, a party must "file objections prior to filing an appeal from a trial court's otherwise appealable adoption, modification, or rejection of a magistrate's ruling."” (¶ 5)
Factual background
E.E.B. filed a petition for an ex parte civil stalking protection order, and the matter was referred to a magistrate. Following a full evidentiary hearing at which both parties were represented by counsel, the magistrate granted a five-year protection order against W.S. The trial court adopted the magistrate's decision, but W.S. filed an appeal without first filing timely objections.
Procedural history
E.E.B. petitioned for an ex parte civil stalking protection order under R.C. 2903.214. After a full evidentiary hearing, the magistrate granted a five-year protection order, and the trial court adopted the magistrate's decision. W.S. filed an appeal but did not file objections within the required 14-day period.