State ex rel. Boddie v. Franklin County 911 Adm'r
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Ohio?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Ohio. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Appellant appealed from an order denying his motion for reconsideration of a magistrate's decision recommending dismissal of his action for a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding (1) the magistrate's decision recommending dismissal of Appellant's mandamus case was not a final, appealable order because it did not determine the mandamus action and prevent a judgment; (2) nor did the court of appeals order denying Appellant's motion for reconsideration of the magistrate's decision constitute a final, appealable order; and (3) thus, the Court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal.
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Boddie v. Franklin Cty. 911 Admr., Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-401.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION NO. 2013-OHIO-401 THE STATE EX REL. BODDIE, APPELLANT, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY 911 ADMINISTRATOR, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Boddie v. Franklin Cty. 911 Admr., Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-401.] Appellate procedure Final orders Magistrate s decision not appealable. (No. 2012-1548 Submitted February 5, 2013 Decided February 14, 2013.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 12AP-523. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We dismiss the appeal of appellant, Howard Boddie Jr., from an order denying his motion for reconsideration of a magistrate s decision recommending dismissal of his action for a writ of mandamus. Appeals as a matter of right may be taken to the Supreme Court in cases originating in courts of appeals, including actions involving extraordinary writs. State ex rel. Sawicki v. Lucas Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 121 Ohio St.3d 507, 2009-Ohio-1523, 905 N.E.2d 1192, ¶ 11; Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 2(B)(2)(a)(i). R.C. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 2505.03 restricts the appellate jurisdiction of this court to the review of final orders, judgments, or decrees. State ex rel. Downs v. Panioto, 107 Ohio St.3d 347, 2006-Ohio-8, 839 N.E.2d 911, ¶ 17. {¶ 2} R.C. 2505.02 defines a final order for purposes of appeal. Id. at ¶ 18. The applicable portion of this statute states, An order is a final order that may be reviewed, affirmed, modified, or reversed, with or without retrial, when it is * * * [a]n order that affects a substantial right in an action that in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment. R.C. 2505.02(B)(1). The magistrate s decision recommending dismissal of Boddie s mandamus case is not a final, appealable order, because it does not determine the mandamus action and prevent a judgment. See Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(a) ( A magistrate s decision is not effective unless adopted by the court ) and (e) ( A court that adopts, rejects, or modifies a magistrate s decision shall also enter a judgment or interim order ); In re Adoption of S.R.A., 189 Ohio App.3d 363, 2010-Ohio-4435, 938 N.E.2d 432, ¶ 17 ( Orders do not constitute court orders unless certain formalities are met, and only judges, not magistrates, can terminate claims or actions by entering judgment ). Nor did the court of appeals order denying Boddie s motion for reconsideration of the magistrate s decision constitute a final, appealable order. See Brewer v. Hope Timber Pallet & Recycling, 5th Dist. No. 10-CA-76, 2011Ohio-533 (order denying motion for reconsideration of interlocutory order denying motion for summary judgment is not a final, appealable order); Harkai v. Scherba Industries, Inc., 136 Ohio App.3d 211, 218, 736 N.E.2d 101 (2000) ( Although the judge entirely agrees with the decision of the magistrate, the judge must still separately enter his or her own judgment setting forth the outline of the dispute and the remedy provided ). The court of appeals order denying the motion for reconsideration did not resolve Boddie s mandamus claim, which, according to the court s website, was dismissed by the court of appeals in accordance with the magistrate s decision on January 7, 2013. 2 January Term, 2013 {¶ 3} Therefore, the order appealed from does not constitute a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(1), because it does not determine Boddie s mandamus action or prevent a judgment. State ex rel. Keith v. McMonagle, 103 Ohio St.3d 430, 2004-Ohio-5580, 816 N.E.2d 597, ¶ 4. We thus lack jurisdiction over this appeal and dismiss it. Appeal dismissed. O CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and O NEILL, JJ., concur. FRENCH, J., not participating. __________________ Howard Boddie Jr., pro se. ______________________ 3
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.
