KURT WALKER v. LOU RESTORATION, et al.
C.A. No. 26236
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
September 5, 2012
2012-Ohio-4031
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CV 2010-09-6233
WHITMORE, Presiding Judge.
{1} Plaintiff-Appellant, Kurt Walker, appeals from the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas in favor of Defendant-Appellees, the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation and Lou Restoration, Inc. This Court affirms.
I
{2} Walker filed a notice of appeal in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas after the Industrial Commission of Ohio disallowed certain claims he filed for Workers’ Compensation. Both the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation and Walker‘s former employer, Lou Restoration, Inc., were made parties to the action. A trial before a magistrate took place in July 2011. Walker testified at trial along with his wife and his expert witness. Additionally, the defense provided expert witness testimony. On July 22, 2011, the magistrate issued her decision, affirming the Industrial Commission‘s decision to disallow Walker‘s claims. Walker filed objections to the magistrate‘s decision, challenging the magistrate‘s ultimate determination that
{3} Walker now appeals from the trial court‘s judgment and raises two assignments of error for our review. For ease of analysis, we consolidate the assignments of error.
II
Assignment of Error Number One
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING PLAINTIFF‘S OBJECTION TO THE MAGISTRATE‘S DECISION BASED UPON THE MERITS BY ASSERTING A NON EXISTENT PROCEDURAL ERROR REGARDING TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS.
Assignment of Error Number Two
THE TRIAL COURT‘S DECISION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AS FOUND IN THE COMPLETE RECORD.
{4} In his first assignment of error, Walker argues that the trial court erred by overruling his objections to the magistrate‘s decision based on a procedural technicality. In his second assignment of error, he argues that the court‘s judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Because Walker did not support his objections to the magistrate‘s decision with a complete transcript, we must presume regularity and overrule his assignments of error.
{5} With respect to pro se litigants, this Court has repeatedly held that:
pro se litigants should be granted reasonable leeway such that their motions and pleadings should be liberally construed so as to decide the issues on the merits, as opposed to technicalities. However, a pro se litigant is presumed to have knowledge of the law and correct legal procedures so that he remains subject to the same rules and procedures to which represented litigants are bound. He is not given greater rights than represented parties, and must bear the consequences of
his mistakes. This Court, therefore, must hold [pro se appellants] to the same standard as any represented party.
(Internal citations omitted.) Sherlock v. Myers, 9th Dist. No. 22071, 2004-Ohio-5178, ¶ 3. With the foregoing in mind, we turn to Walker‘s arguments.
{6}
{7} Walker did not request a complete trial transcript in his praecipe to the court reporter. Rather, he specifically requested a partial transcript limited to the “portion after break when [the magistrate] went on record that video depositions of both doctors [were] to be trial testimony.” (Sic.) The transcript filed with the trial court only represented the portion of the trial that Walker requested. Consequently, the trial court presumed regularity in the proceedings and overruled his objections. The court did not err by doing so. Sliwinski v. Capital Properties Mgt., Ltd., 9th Dist. No. 25867, 2012-Ohio-1822, ¶ 9 (“Absent a transcript, the trial court and this Court must presume regularity in the proceedings on any finding of fact made by the magistrate.“).
{8} Much like the trial court, we are constrained by the record on appeal. In re M.O., 9th Dist. No. 22177, 2005-Ohio-264, ¶ 9 (“[O]ur review is limited to those materials before the trial court when it rule[s] on [] objections [to a magistrate‘s decision].“). Without a complete transcript, “[an] appellant cannot demonstrate * * * error [with respect to factual findings], and thus, we must presume the regularity of the proceedings and that the facts were correctly interpreted.” Lakota at ¶ 7, quoting Yancy v. Haehn, 11th Dist. No. 99-G-2210, 2000 WL 263757, *3 (Mar. 3, 2000). Because Walker failed to file a complete transcript of the proceedings in support of his objections, the trial court correctly presumed regularity in the proceedings and Walker cannot demonstrate error on appeal. Walker‘s assignments of error are overruled.
III
{9} Walker‘s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to
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 time the period for review shall begin to run.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
BETH WHITMORE
FOR THE COURT
MOORE, J. CONCURS.
DICKINSON, J. CONCURRING IN JUDGMENT ONLY.
{10} I concur in the majority‘s judgment. I write separately to clarify that the problem in this case is Mr. Walker‘s failure to support his objections before the trial court with a complete transcript of the proceedings that occurred in front of the magistrate. That problem would not have been cured by presenting a complete transcript to this Court.
APPEARANCES:
KURT WALKER, pro se, Appellant.
RONALD A. SKINGLE, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.
EUGENE B. MEADOR, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.