State ex rel. Robinson v. Adult Parole Authority
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.
Here, the Supreme Court withdrew its prior opinion affirming the judgment of the court of appeals, which referred this case to a magistrate, who then purported to dismiss the petition sua sponte. Upon further consideration, the Supreme Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear and decide this case, which Appellant filed in the court of appeals seeking a writ of mandamus against the Ohio Adult Parole Authority. Under Ohio R. Civ. P. 53, a magistrate’s decision, standing alone, is not a final, appealable order, and because the court of appeals did not adopt the magistrate’s decision, Appellant never received a final, appealable order.
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Robinson v. Adult Parole Auth., Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-558.] 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. 2018-OHIO-558 THE STATE EX REL. ROBINSON, APPELLANT, v. ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Robinson v. Adult Parole Auth., Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-558.] Mandamus—A magistrate’s decision, standing alone, is not a final, appealable order—Prior opinion withdrawn and cause dismissed for lack of final, appealable order. (No. 2016-1181—Submitted May 16, 2017—Decided January 24, 2018.*) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 16AP-284. ________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Appellant, Damon Robinson, commenced this action in the Tenth District Court of Appeals seeking a writ of mandamus against appellee, Ohio Adult Parole Authority. The court of appeals referred the case to a magistrate, and on July 25, 2016, the magistrate purported to dismiss the petition sua sponte. On *Reporter’s Note: This cause was decided on January 24, 2018, but was released to the public on February 15, 2018, subsequent to the resignation of Justice William M. O’Neill, who participated in the decision. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO November 30, 2017, we affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. __ Ohio St.3d __, 2017-Ohio-8721, __ N.E.3d __. {¶ 2} Upon further consideration, however, we conclude that we lacked jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. Proceedings before a magistrate are governed by Civ.R. 53, as expressly incorporated by Loc.R. 13(M)(1) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals. Under that rule, a “magistrate’s decision is not effective unless adopted by the court.” Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(a). For this reason, a magistrate’s decision, standing alone, is not a final, appealable order. See State ex rel. Boddie v. Franklin Cty. 911 Admr., 135 Ohio St.3d 248, 2013-Ohio-401, 985 N.E.2d 1263. Because the court of appeals did not adopt the magistrate’s decision, Robinson never received a final, appealable order. {¶ 3} We hereby withdraw the prior opinion and order it withdrawn from official publication. It therefore has no precedential value. See In re Adoption of Ridenour, 61 Ohio St.3d 319, 327, 574 N.E.2d 1055 (1991), fn. 6. We dismiss this appeal for lack of a final, appealable order. Cause dismissed. O’CONNOR, C.J., and FRENCH, O’NEILL, FISCHER, and DEWINE, JJ., concur. O’DONNELL and KENNEDY, JJ., concur in judgment only. _________________ Damon Robinson, pro se. Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and George Horvath, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. _________________ 2
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.
