In the case of State ex rel. Ames v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2023-Ohio-1247, an appellate court held that the requester could not appeal the trial court’s adoption of the magistrate’s decision because the objector did not object to a magistrate’s decision or claim plain error.
In this case, the requestor argued that the appeal implied clear error on the part of the trial court. In response, the board of revision argued that the requester did not object to the magistrate’s decision and did not allege clear error in the appeal. The appellate court agreed with the board of revision.
In support of its lead decision in favor of the board of revision, the appellate court explained the requestor must object to the magistrate’s decision or claim clear error on appeal to appeal a trial court’s adoption of a magistrate’s recommendation. The appellate court further explained that pro se litigants are not entitled to special treatment, especially a requestor who has a long history of pro se litigation like this requester.
In support of its dissenting decision in favor of the requester, the appellate court explained that while there is precedent to disregard plain error when no claim of plain error is made, there is no requirement that the court must disregard plain error. The appellate court further explained that the court has read plain error in an appeal even when no such claim was made in previous cases, and the court could have and should have read plain error into this case as well.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.