Raheem v. McManus
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Raheem v. McManus, 2010-Ohio-4899.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94713 MIKAEL A. RAHEEM PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs. OFFICER JAMES MCMANUS DEFENDANT-APPELLEE JUDGMENT: DISMISSED Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-706075 BEFORE: Rocco, P.J., Boyle, J., and Celebrezze, J. RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: October 7, 2010 2 FOR APPELLANT Mikael A. Raheem, pro se P.O. Box 12121 East Cleveland, Ohio 44112 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Robert J. Triozzi Director of Law Joseph F. Scott Jennifer Meyer Assistant Directors of Law 601 Lakeside Avenue, Room 106 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 KENNETH A. ROCCO, P.J.: {¶ 1} In this appeal assigned to the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.App.R. 11.1, plaintiff-appellant Mikael A. Raheem, proceeding pro se, challenges the trial court s order that denied his motion to amend his complaint, denied his motion to continue the case, and dismissed his action against defendant-appellee Cleveland police officer James McManus. {¶ 2} The purpose of an accelerated appeal is to allow this court to render a brief and conclusory opinion. Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assoc. (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d 158, 463 N.E.2d 655; App.R. 11.1(E). 3 {¶ 3} It can be gleaned from Raheem s appellate brief that he asserts the trial court abused its discretion in this matter. However, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider his assertion, because the record reflects the trial court dismissed his case without prejudice. {¶ 4} This court has previously held that a dismissal without prejudice is not a final determination of the rights of the parties and does not constitute a judgment or final order when refiling or amending of the complaint is possible. Sexton v. Kidder, Peabody & Co., Inc. (Aug. 24, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 74833, citing Benaco Tooling, Inc. v. Bancorp Holdings, Inc. (Mar. 21, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 69015; In re Mary Beth v. Howard (Dec. 22, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 6674 [sic]. A dismissal of an action without prejudice leaves the parties in the same position as if the plaintiff had not commenced the action. Sexton, supra, citing Westerhaus v. Weintraut (Aug. 31, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 68605. Where an action may be refiled, the litigation has not been brought to an end on the merits. Id. {¶ 5} Here, appellant may refile her complaint. Accordingly, no substantial right has been affected and the litigation has not been brought to an end on its merits. Therefore, the order appealed from is not a final order which this court has jurisdiction to review. Newton v. Traveler s Indemnity Co., Cuyahoga App. No. 81284, 2002-Ohio-5856, ¶11-12. See, also, Coleman v. Showroom Transport, Cuyahoga App. No. 93675, 2010-Ohio-1439, ¶13-15. 4 {¶ 6} Raheem s appeal is dismissed. It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. __________________________________________ KENNETH A. ROCCO, PRESIDING JUDGE MARY J. BOYLE, J., and FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., CONCUR
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
