{¶ 2} Appellant filed an action in the Court of Claims of Ohio alleging negligence for injuries he received. A magistrate conducted a trial and entered a decision, recommending judgment for appellee. Appellant filed objections but did not file a transcript or an affidavit of the evidence presented to the magistrate, as required by Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(c). The Court of Claims overruled appellant's objections and adopted the magistrate's decision.
{¶ 3} Appellant filed a notice of appeal, raising the following five assignments of error:
FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
The trial court abused its discretion by failing to review appellant's objections under the common-law standard that was held in the case Woods-vs-Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation AndCorrections, cited
SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
The trial court abused its discretion by failing to invoke its power to uphold the laws of the State of Ohio. The trial court should have found the defendants were violating the Ohio Revised Code under the Ohio Seat Belt Laws. Moreover, in theWoods-vs-Ohio Department of Rehabilitation And Corrections,
THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
The trial court abused its discretion by holding the appellant to facts that he must have a specific injury to prevail on the negligence claim. The trial court has made a gross error solely because a party can recover for pain and suffering due to a motor vehicle personal injury of pain.
FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
The trial court abused its discretion by finding that the appellant would have to prove that the driver, Donald Seymour, had collided with an object to prevail on a claim of negligence.
FIFTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
The trial court abused its discretion by not addressing every issue submitted within the appellant's objections. The trial court has failed to review the issue of Woods-vs-Ohio Departmentof Rehabilitation And Corrections,
{¶ 4} The assignments of error are related and shall be addressed together. By the first assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to review his objections, particularly in light of Woods v. OhioDept. of Rehab. Corr. (1998),
{¶ 5} In State ex rel. Duncan v. Chippewa Twp. Trustees
(1995),
When a party objecting to a [magistrate's decision] has failed to provide the trial court with the evidence and documents by which the court could make a finding independent of the [decision], appellate review of the court's findings is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion in adopting the [magistrate's decision.] * * *
Thus, our review of appellant's assignments of error is limited to whether the Court of Claims abused its discretion in applying the law to the magistrate's findings of fact. H.L.S. Bonding Co.v. Fox, Franklin App. No. 03AP-150,
{¶ 6} At the trial regarding liability and civil immunity, the magistrate found that appellant failed to prove by a preponderance of sufficient, credible evidence that ODRC was negligent. Further, the magistrate found that the medical evidence did not support appellant's claim that he was injured while riding in appellee's bus. Finally, the magistrate determined that Corrections Officer Seymour did not act manifestly outside the scope of his employment, with malicious purpose, in bad faith or in a wanton or reckless manner and was, therefore, entitled to civil immunity.
{¶ 7} In his objections, appellant argued that seven of the magistrate's findings were in error. He objected to the finding that Corrections Officer Seymour did not act in bad faith and argued that the findings regarding the operation of the bus were not supported by the testimony. Appellant also objected to the following findings: that the bus needed to collide with an object; that appellant needed a specific injury; that appellant needed to prove appellee owed a duty and breached that duty; that Corrections Officer Seymour was entitled to civil immunity and that there was not a violation of the seatbelt law.
{¶ 8} To resolve appellant's objections, the Court of Claims needed to examine the evidence presented at trial before the magistrate. In the absence of a transcript, the Court of Claims could not have determined whether the evidence presented to the magistrate supported the magistrate's findings. Therefore, "`the trial court was required to accept the magistrate's findings of fact and examine only the legal conclusions based on those facts.'" DAK, PLL v. Borgerding, Franklin App. No. 02AP-1051,
{¶ 9} The Court of Claims overruled appellant's objections to the magistrate's factual findings since appellant did not file a transcript. The Court of Claims also addressed appellant's objections based upon the magistrate's application of the law, specifically the magistrate's decision that a violation of R.C.
{¶ 10} The Court of Claims addressed appellant's concern that the Office of Risk Management failed to make an appearance and finally, appellant's objection to the magistrate's failure to apply the Ohio seatbelt laws. The Court of Claims noted that the magistrate's decision did not discuss seatbelts, and in the absence of a transcript of the evidence, the court was unable to determine whether the seatbelt law was applicable to this case. Although appellant argues in his assignments of error that the court erred in failing to address his objections and properly apply Ohio laws, the Court of Claims did address the objections to the extent permissible without a transcript of the evidence to review. Without a transcript, neither the Court of Claims nor this court can determine the applicability of the seatbelt laws and/or Woods, supra, to these facts. Thus, appellant's assignments of error are not well-taken.
{¶ 11} For the foregoing reasons, appellant's five assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
BROWN and McGRATH, JJ., concur.