Geauga Cty. Bd. of Health v. Echols

2024 Ohio 1117

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 25, 2024
• Docket: 2024-G-0008
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Geauga Cty. Bd. of Health v. Echols, 2024-Ohio-1117.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GEAUGA COUNTY

GEAUGA COUNTY CASE NO. 2024-G-0008 BOARD OF HEALTH, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees, Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas - vs -

SELLIE ECHOLS, Trial Court No. 2023 M 000463

Defendant,

ROBERT ECHOLS,

Defendant-Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Decided: March 25, 2024 Judgment: Appeal dismissed

James R. Flaiz, Geauga County Prosecutor, Courthouse Annex, 231 Main Street, Suite 3A, Chardon, OH 44024 (For Plaintiffs-Appellees).

R. Russell Kubyn, Kubyn & Ghaster, 8373 Mentor Avenue, Mentor, OH 44060 (For Defendant-Appellant).

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.

{¶1} Appellant, Robert Echols, appeals from the February 9, 2024 judgment of

the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons discussed, we conclude

the judgment at issue is not final and therefore not appealable at this time. The appeal is

accordingly dismissed. {¶2} In August 2023, appellees, the Geauga County Board of Health and the

Chardon Township Board of Trustees, filed a complaint for injunctive relief against

appellant and Sellie Echols for solid and hazardous waste violations along with township

zoning violations. During the pendency of the proceedings, appellant filed a motion to

remove and/or disqualify the magistrate asserting that the magistrate was prejudicial

against appellant’s counsel and cannot impartially preside over the case.

{¶3} The trial court subsequently denied the motion. Appellant appeals from that

judgment.

{¶4} It is well settled that an appellate court does not have jurisdiction to review

a lower court’s order that is not final. Noble v. Colwell, 44 Ohio St.3d 92, 96. For a

judgment to be final and appealable, it must satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2505.02.

See Children’s Hospital Med. Ctr. v. Tomaiko, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2011-P-0103, 2011-

Ohio-6838.

{¶5} Pursuant to R.C. 2505.02(B)(2), an order is final and appealable “if it affects

a substantial right made in a special proceeding.” A “[s]pecial proceeding” is “an action

or proceeding that is specially created by statute and that prior to 1853 was not denoted

as an action at law or a suit in equity.” R.C. 2505.02(A)(2). A substantial right is one that

“the United States Constitution, the Ohio Constitution, a statute, the common law, or a

rule of procedure entitles a person to enforce or protect.” R.C. 2505.02(A)(1).

{¶6} This court has stated that the denial of appellant’s motion to remove a

magistrate does not affect a substantial right. See Lindsey v. Lindsey, 11th Dist. Geauga

No. 2020-G-0250, 2020-G-3567.

Case No. 2024-G-0008 {¶7} Furthermore, this court has concluded that an entry denying a motion to

recuse a magistrate is not immediately appealable where other issues are pending in the

trial court. In Aloi v. Enervest, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2011-P-0023, 2011-Ohio-5112, this

court stated that a “judgment entry overruling the motion to recuse a common pleas judge

and disqualify a magistrate is not a final appealable order.” Here, the claims raised in the

complaint have not yet been resolved.

{¶8} Accordingly, in the instant matter, we conclude the trial court’s judgment

denying the motion to remove and/or disqualify the magistrate is not a final, appealable

order.

{¶9} Appeal dismissed.

EUGENE A. LUCCI, P.J.,

JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,

concur.

Case No. 2024-G-0008