Lake Cty. Dept. of Job & Family Servs., Child Support Enforcement Div. v. Oatman

2025 Ohio 2308

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 30, 2025
• Docket: 2025-L-055
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Lake Cty. Dept. of Job & Family Servs., Child Support Enforcement Div. v. Oatman, 2025-Ohio-2308.]

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

LAKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT CASE NO. 2025-L-055 OF JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES; CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, et al., Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Juvenile Division

- vs - Trial Court No. 2024 SE 00865 SABREL B. OATMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Decided: June 30, 2025 Judgment: Appeal dismissed

Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Philip C. King, Assistant Prosecutor, Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellee, Lake County Department of Job and Family Services; Child Support Enforcement Division).

Jacquelyn Brooks, pro se, 36851 Beech Hills Drive, Willoughby Hills, OH 44094 (Plaintiff-Appellee).

Sabrel B. Oatman, pro se, 4196 Flossy Lane, Perry, OH 44081 (Defendant-Appellant).

EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.

{¶1} This appeal emanates from the Lake County Court of Common Pleas,

Juvenile Division. Appellant, Sabrel B. Oatman, pro se, filed an appeal and attached two

magistrate’s orders. One was dated May 1, 2025, and in it, appellant was denied a motion

to stay the withholding of his income. The other one was dated May 9, 2025, and the

magistrate dismissed appellant’s motion to dismiss and his motion to show cause and determined that his motion to compel was moot. The magistrate also reset the matter for

a trial on June 2, 2025. The docket reveals that appellant filed additional motions on May

12, 2025, one of which was an objection to the May 9, 2025 Magistrate’s Order. The trial

court issued an entry ruling on some of the motions filed on May 12, 2025, but did not

rule on the objection to the magistrate’s order.

{¶2} Initially, we must determine whether there is a final appealable order since

this court may entertain only those appeals from final judgments or orders. Noble v.

Colwell, 44 Ohio St.3d 92, 96 (1989). Under Section 3(B)(2), Article IV of the Ohio

Constitution, an appellate court can immediately review a judgment of the trial court only

if it constitutes a “final order” in the action. McDonie v. Wallster, 2024-Ohio-5265, ¶ 2

(11th Dist.). If the lower court’s order is not final, then this court does not have jurisdiction

to review the case, and the appeal must be dismissed. Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of

N. Am., 44 Ohio St.3d 17, 20 (1989).

{¶3} R.C. 2505.02(B) defines a “final order” and sets forth seven categories of

appealable judgments, and if the judgment of the trial court satisfies any of them, it will

be deemed a “final order” and can be immediately appealed and reviewed. In this matter,

neither the May 1 nor the May 9 Magistrate’s Orders fit within any of the categories for

being a final order under R.C. 2505.02(B) and neither order disposed of all claims.

{¶4} Generally, “a magistrate may enter orders without judicial approval if

necessary to regulate the proceedings and if not dispositive of a claim or defense of a

party.” See Civ.R. 53(D)(2)(a)(i). We have explained that although magistrate’s orders

are effective without judicial approval, they are not “directly appealable.” McDonie at ¶ 4.

Hence, the magistrate’s orders are simply interlocutory in nature. Id.

PAGE 2 OF 4

Case No. 2025-L-055 {¶5} Here, both the May 1, 2025 and the May 9, 2025 orders are interlocutory

orders and are not final and appealable. This court does not have jurisdiction to hear this

appeal. However, nothing is preventing appellant from obtaining effective relief through

an appeal once the trial court has entered a final judgment in the action.

{¶6} Based upon the foregoing analysis, the orders of the trial court are not final

and appealable. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby sua sponte dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction.

ROBERT J. PATTON, P.J.,

SCOTT LYNCH, J.,

concur.

PAGE 3 OF 4

Case No. 2025-L-055 JUDGMENT ENTRY

For the reasons stated in the memorandum opinion of this court, it is ordered that

this appeal is sua sponte dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Costs to be taxed against appellant.

JUDGE EUGENE A. LUCCI

PRESIDING JUDGE ROBERT J. PATTON, concurs

JUDGE SCOTT LYNCH, concurs

THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY

A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.

PAGE 4 OF 4

Case No. 2025-L-055