2019 Ohio 2346
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Petitioner Janis Anderson sought a civil stalking protection order alleging Paulisha Gregory tracked and followed her on January 6, 2019, and that Gregory made numerous threatening calls and threats of violence.
- No ex parte order was issued; a full hearing before a magistrate was set for January 15, 2019. Gregory was served with notice of the hearing on January 8, 2019.
- The magistrate granted the protection order after the full hearing; the trial court reviewed and adopted the magistrate’s order and signed the final protection order on January 22, 2019.
- Gregory did not attend the January 15 hearing and later explained she was ill (Influenza A diagnosed January 14) and attempted to call the court that morning.
- Gregory appealed the final civil stalking protection order, arguing she was unable to defend herself at the hearing due to illness and asking that costs against her be vacated.
- The trial court’s adoption of the magistrate’s order became final and appealable; Gregory did not file timely objections in the trial court before appealing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gregory can appeal the trial court’s adoption of the magistrate’s grant of a civil protection order without first filing timely objections under Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d) | Anderson: order is final and enforceable; no direct argument in favor of allowing appeal without objections | Gregory: did not file objections because she was ill and thus should be permitted to appeal or obtain relief/vacatur of costs | Court held Gregory may not appeal because Civ.R. 65.1(G) requires timely trial-court objections before an appeal; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Gessner v. Vore, 914 N.E.2d 376 (Ohio 2009) (pro se litigants are held to same procedural standards as represented parties)
- State ex rel. Fuller v. Mengel, 800 N.E.2d 25 (Ohio 2003) (pro se litigants presumed to know law and procedure)
- Sabouri v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 763 N.E.2d 1238 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001) (same principle regarding pro se litigant standards)