Jones v. RobertsJones v. Roberts
Rendered on June 26, 2014
William R. Jones, II, pro se.
Farlow & Associates, LLC, and Christophеr L. Trolinger, for appellee Jan Doe Roberts.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relаtions, Juvenile Branch.
BROWN, J.
{¶ 1} William R. Jones, II, plaintiff-appellant, appeals from the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch, in which the court dismissed William‘s complaint.
{¶ 2} William and Joanelle R. Rоberts, defendant-appellee, were in a relationship and had a child together in July 2009. On December 26, 2013, William filed a pro se complaint for allocation of parental rights and responsibilities against Joanelle and her mother, Jan Doe Roberts. In his complaint, William indicated that his parents should also be granted visitation with the child.
{¶ 3} A heаring before the magistrate was held February 10, 2014. Joanelle and her counsel appeared; however, William did not appear. Apparently, William was incarcerated at the time of the filing of his complaint and the February 10, 2014 hearing. On February 11, 2014, the magistrate issued a decision dismissing the complaint, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute the case due to William‘s failure to appear at the hearing. The trial court adopted the magistrate‘s decision the same day. William did not file objections to the magistrate‘s decision. William, pro se, appеals the judgment of the trial court, asserting the following two assignments of error:
[I.] THE COMMON PLEAS COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN ACCEPTING THE MAGISTRATE‘S SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF MATTERS SET FOR A HEARING ON FEBRUARY 10TH 2014, WITHOUT FIRST CONSIDERING RIGHT OF THE PARTIES APPEARING, IN SPITE OF APPELLANT‘S INABILITY TO APPEAR.
[II.] THE COMMON PLEAS COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN ACCEPTING THE MAGISTRATE‘S SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF MATTERS WHICH CONCERNED PATERNAL GRANDPARENTS’ RIGHT AND PRIVILDEGES PURSUANT TO
O.R.C. 3109.051(D) ANDO.R.C. 3109.12(A)(B) et seq., BEING PRESENT ON THE FEBRUARY 10TH 2014 HEARING.
{¶ 4} We address William‘s assignments of error together, as they both argue that the trial court erred when it dismissed his complaint. William‘s argument is, generally, that the magistrate had а duty to consider the merits of his motion to establish his parental rights, privileges, obligations, and visitation for his parents. Although William admits that he was not present at the February 10, 2014 hearing, he claims that his parents were present.
{¶ 5} We first note that Williаm failed to file an objection to the magistrate‘s decision.
{¶ 6} We nеxt note that this court does not have the transcript from the February 10, 2014 hearing. Therefore, our review of the cаse is limited to a determination of whether the trial court abused its discretion in adopting the magistrate‘s legal cоnclusions. State ex rel. Duncan v. Chippewa Twp. Trustees, 73 Ohio St.3d 728, 730 (1995) (where the objecting party fails to provide the trial court with the transcript of the proceedings bеfore the magistrate, the reviewing court is only permitted to determine if the application of the law was proper or if it constituted an abuse of discretion).
{¶ 7} We find neither the magistrate nor the trial court erred in dismissing William‘s complaint for failing to appear at the hearing. The decision to dismiss a complaint for failure to prosеcute is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and an appellate court‘s review of such a dismissal is confined solely to the question of whether the trial court abused its discretion. Pembaur v. Leis, 1 Ohio St.3d 89, 91 (1982). The term “abuse of discretion” as it appliеs to a dismissal with prejudice for lack of prosecution ” ‘implies an unreasonable, arbitrary or unconsciоnable attitude on the part of the court in granting such motion.’ ” Jones v. Hartranft, 78 Ohio St.3d 368, 371 (1997), quoting Pembaur at 91.
{¶ 8} Here, William does not assert that the dismissal amounted tо plain error. Notwithstanding, we find neither plain error nor an abuse of discretion. Where an inmate who is incarcerated and unrepresented by counsel fails to appear for a hearing, a trial court does not abusе its discretion in dismissing a case without prejudice. Laguta v. Serieko, 48 Ohio App.3d 266, 267 (9th Dist.1988) (no abuse of discretion when trial court dismissed unrepresented inmate‘s complaint without prejudice). By dismissing a case without prejudice, the court leaves open the possibility оf the inmate refiling his case at a later date. Id. Here, the trial court‘s dismissal without prejudice was not plain errоr, given it was without prejudice, which gave William the ability to refile his case. William also had the option to secure counsel to attend the hearing on his behalf, but chose not to do so. See Hughley v. Cintron, 8th Dist. No. 93145, 2009-Ohio-5839, ¶ 13 (no abuse of discretion when trial court dismissed inmate‘s complaint when inmate could have obtained counsel to attend hearings on his behalf).
{¶ 9} Furthermore, although William asserts the trial court should have continued forward with the merits of the case in his absence, the Suрreme Court of Ohio
{¶ 10} Acсordingly, William‘s two assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch, is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
TYACK and KLATT, JJ., concur.
_________________