G.L. v. BriggsG.L. v. Briggs
SUTTON, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant Dennis Briggs appeals the judgment of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons that follow, this Court affirms.
I.
Relevant Background Information
{¶2} This appeal arises from issuance of a Civil Stalking Protection Order (“CSPO“) against Mr. Briggs by the Medina County Court of Common Pleas. In August 2025, G.L. filed a petition pursuant to
{¶3} On September 18, 2025, Mr. Briggs filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate‘s decision. At that time, Mr. Briggs did not order a transcript of the hearing before the magistrate, move for a transcript at public expense, or file an affidavit оf the evidence before the magistrate. Mr. Briggs also filed a motion seeking a “500’ map and [G.L‘s] schedule so he knows when he has to stay out of the area.” On Octobеr 30, 2025, Mr. Briggs filed a motion for reduction of the protection order to “fifty feet.”
{¶4} On November 3, 2025, the trial court treated Mr. Briggs‘s motion for reconsideration as objections to the magistrate‘s decision pursuant to
{¶5} Mr. Briggs filed a notice of appeal to this Court. The same day, Mr. Briggs filed a motion for a stay of the CSPO in the trial court, stating that “[o]n or about July 12, 2025, [he] approached [G.L.] in her truck and told her he wanted to get married so he could have sex[.]” In connection with his notice of appeal, Mr. Briggs filed a praecipe to the court reporter for the transcript of the full CSPO hearing before the magistrate. After he was notified that he would have to pay $323.30 for a transсript, Mr. Briggs moved for the transcript at public expense claiming he was indigent. The trial court denied the motions for stay and for the transcript.
{¶6} On appeal, Mr. Briggs raises six assignments of error for our review.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT ISSUED THE PROTECTION ORDER IN VIOLATION OF R.C. 2903.211(d)(1) WHICH REQUIRES TWO OR MORE INCIDEN[TS]. THERE WAS ONLY ONE.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT ISSUED THE PROTECTION ORDER AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3, OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT SAID BY RESPONDENT[‘]S OWN ADMISSION, AT LEAST THREE INCIDENTS TOOK PLACE. THERE WAS ONLY ONE.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT OMITTED THE FACT THAT [HE] TOLD [G.L.] “AFTER WE GOT MARRIED” I WAS LOOKING FORWARD TO HAVING SEX.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR V
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT SAID [G.L.] HID HER TRUCK AT WORK. SHE NORMALLY PARKED IT RIGHT IN FRONT.
{¶7} Mr. Briggs argues in his first five assignments of error that the trial court erred in its findings of fact and that the CSPO was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Mr. Briggs аrgues there was only one incident and therefore no “pattern of conduct” as defined by
{¶8}
{¶9} In his appellate brief, Mr. Briggs alleges G.L. was standing in front of her place of employment “waving her very long hair back and forth loоking back at” him. Mr. Briggs believed G.L. was “interested in [him.]” A few days later, he admitted he approached G.L. and said he was looking for a wife so he “could have sex.” Mr. Briggs argues this is the only incident that occurred. The magistrate, however, found Mr. Briggs admitted that three incidents took place.
{¶10} Mr. Briggs argues in his first five assignments of error that the factual determinations made at the trial court level were erroneous and that the issuance of the CSPO was against the manifеst weight of the evidence. As such, he was required to support his objections to the magistrate‘s decision with a transcript or affidavit of the evidence before the magistrate, which he failed to do. Accordingly, Mr. Briggs‘s assignments of error one through five are overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VI
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT ISSUING INDIGENT TRANSCRIPTS IN VIOLATION OF OHIO REVISED CODE SECTION 2301.24 WHICH ALLOWS A TRIAL JUDGE TO REQUEST INDIGENT TRANSCRIPTS IN CIVIL CASES.
{¶11} In his sixth assignment of error, Mr. Briggs argues the trial court erred in not requesting a transcript of the hearing before the magistrate pursuant to
The compensation for transcripts requested by the prosecuting attorney or an indigent defеndant in criminal cases or by the trial judge in either civil or criminal cases, and for copies of decisions and charges furnished by direction of the court shall be paid from the county treasury and taxed and collected as costs.
{¶12} Mr. Briggs did not request a transcript prior to the trial court ruling on his objections. Mr. Briggs filed his objections оn September 18, 2025. The trial court ruled on the objections on November 3, 2025.
{¶13} If Mr. Briggs was unable to afford a transcript due to indigence, the remedy would have been to file an affidavit of the evidence pursuant to
{¶14} Mr. Briggs did not take the steps necessary pursuant to
{¶15} Accordingly, Mr. Briggs‘s sixth assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶16} For the foregoing reаsons, Mr. Briggs‘s assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which timе the period for review shall begin to run.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
BETTY SUTTON
FOR THE COURT
HENSAL, P. J.
FLAGG LANZINGER, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
DENNIS BRIGGS, pro se, Appellant.
G. L., pro se, Appellee.