Radic v. Sternadel

2025 Ohio 4527

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 29, 2025
• Docket: 2025-A-0045
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Radic v. Sternadel, 2025-Ohio-4527.]

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

KATELYN RADIC, CASE NO. 2025-A-0045

Plaintiff-Appellant, Civil Appeal from the - vs - Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division STEPHEN STERNADEL,

Defendant-Appellee. Trial Court No. 2024 JI 00036

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Decided: September 29, 2025 Judgment: Appeal dismissed

David N. Patterson, P.O. Box 1423, Willoughby, OH 44096 and Nicole A. Cruz, Stafford Cruz Law Co., L.P.A., North Point Tower, 1001 Lakeside Avenue, Suite 1300, Cleveland, OH 44114 (For Plaintiff-Appellant).

Michelle M. Fisher, 1612 East Prospect Road, Ashtabula, OH 44004 (For Defendant- Appellee).

Sean P. Martin, 113 North Chestnut Street, Suite A, Jefferson, OH 44047 (Guardian ad litem).

MATT LYNCH, J.

{¶1} Appellant, Katelyn Radic, through counsel, filed an appeal from a July 30,

2025 Magistrate’s Order granting temporary custody of the minor child to appellee,

Stephen Sternadel, and she also appeals a July 30, 2025 Magistrate’s Decision

sanctioning her for contempt and ordering her to be incarcerated until she produces the

minor child. {¶2} Initially, this court must determine if there is a final and appealable order

since we 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 trial court’s judgment only if it

constitutes a “final order” in the action. Bahner v. Marketplace Mall, LLC, 2024-Ohio-

1430, ¶ 2 (11th Dist.). If a lower court’s order is not final, then an appellate court does

not have jurisdiction to review the case, and the case 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,

the July 30, 2025 Magistrate’s Order being appealed does not fit within any of the

categories for being a final order under R.C. 2505.02(B) and did not dispose of all claims.

{¶4} In general, “. . . 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). This court has maintained that although a magistrate’s

order is effective without judicial approval, it is not “directly appealable.” Quail Point

Condominium Owners Assn. v. Rogers, 2024-Ohio-5770, ¶ 4 (11th Dist.). Therefore, a

magistrate’s order is simply interlocutory by nature. Id.

{¶5} In this case, the July 30, 2025 Magistrate’s Order is interlocutory and is not

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

{¶6} Furthermore, pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(a), a magistrate’s decision is not

effective unless it is adopted by the court. A magistrate’s decision is not final until a trial

PAGE 2 OF 4

Case No. 2025-A-0045 court reviews it and the trial court (1) rules on any objections, (2) adopts, modifies, or

rejects the decision, and (3) enters a judgment that determines all of the claims for relief

in the matter. Sipan v. De La Paz, 2025-Ohio-232, ¶ 3 (11th Dist.). Until the trial court

adopts a magistrate’s decision, it is simply interlocutory. Id.

{¶7} This court has stated that no final judgment exists “where a lower court fails

to adopt the magistrate’s decision and enter judgment stating the relief to be afforded

because ‘orders are not court orders unless certain formalities are met.’” Id. at ¶ 4. An

action may only be terminated by judges, not magistrates, by entering judgment. Id.

{¶8} Here, the July 30, 2025 Magistrate’s Decision is also not final and

appealable. Thus, we do not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Since the trial court

has not yet adopted the magistrate’s decision, it remains an interlocutory order and may

be reconsidered upon the court’s own motion or that of a party.

{¶9} Based upon the foregoing analysis, there is no final appealable order.

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

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

{¶10} Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction.

JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,

EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,

concur.

PAGE 3 OF 4

Case No. 2025-A-0045 JUDGMENT ENTRY

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

this appeal is hereby dismissed, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction.

Furthermore, pursuant to this entry, any pending motions are hereby overruled as

moot.

Costs to be taxed against appellant.

JUDGE MATT LYNCH

JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND, concurs

JUDGE EUGENE A. LUCCI, 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-A-0045