State Ex Rel. Maroon v. Ohio State Highway Patrol Retirement System

Ohio Supreme Court

State Ex Rel. Maroon v. Ohio State Highway Patrol Retirement System

2012 Ohio 2679, 132 Ohio St. 3d 287

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 20, 2012

Docket2011-1355

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2012 Ohio 2679 (State Ex Rel. Maroon v. Ohio State Highway Patrol Retirement System) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State Ex Rel. Maroon v. Ohio State Highway Patrol Retirement System, 2012 Ohio 2679, 132 Ohio St. 3d 287 (Ohio 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the request of appellant, Anthony Maroon, for a writ of mandamus. Maroon sought the writ to compel appellee, Ohio State Highway Patrol Retirement System, to find that he is a member of the State Highway Patrol fund and is eligible to apply for disability- *288 retirement benefits and to receive a hearing on his claim. The court of appeals adopted the decision of its magistrate, including her findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Marc G. Doumbas, for appellant. Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Dennis P. Smith Jr. and Catherine J. Calko, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

{¶ 2} Because Maroon failed to object to the magistrate’s decision and his proposition of law challenges the conclusions of law in that decision as adopted by the court of appeals, he waived any error made by the court of appeals in adopting the magistrate’s conclusions and denying the writ. See Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv) (“Except for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)”); Loc.R. 12(M)(1) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals (“the proceedings and decision of the magistrate and objections thereto shall be governed by Civ.R. 53”); State ex rel. Schmidt v. School Emps. Retirement Sys., 100 Ohio St.3d 317, 2003-Ohio-6086, 798 N.E.2d 1088, ¶ 6; State ex rel. Johnson v. Ryan, 127 Ohio St.3d 267, 2010-Ohio-5676, 939 N.E.2d 146, ¶ 3. Nor does Maroon raise any viable claim of plain error.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, J., concurs in judgment only.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the request of appellant, Anthony Maroon, for a writ of mandamus. Maroon sought the writ to compel appellee, Ohio State Highway Patrol Retirement System, to find that he is a member of the State Highway Patrol fund and is eligible to apply for disability- *288 retirement benefits and to receive a hearing on his claim. The court of appeals adopted the decision of its magistrate, including her findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Marc G. Doumbas, for appellant. Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Dennis P. Smith Jr. and Catherine J. Calko, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

{¶ 2} Because Maroon failed to object to the magistrate’s decision and his proposition of law challenges the conclusions of law in that decision as adopted by the court of appeals, he waived any error made by the court of appeals in adopting the magistrate’s conclusions and denying the writ. See Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv) (“Except for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)”); Loc.R. 12(M)(1) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals (“the proceedings and decision of the magistrate and objections thereto shall be governed by Civ.R. 53”); State ex rel. Schmidt v. School Emps. Retirement Sys., 100 Ohio St.3d 317, 2003-Ohio-6086, 798 N.E.2d 1088, ¶ 6; State ex rel. Johnson v. Ryan, 127 Ohio St.3d 267, 2010-Ohio-5676, 939 N.E.2d 146, ¶ 3. Nor does Maroon raise any viable claim of plain error.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, J., concurs in judgment only.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2012 Ohio 2679, 132 Ohio St. 3d 287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-maroon-v-ohio-state-highway-patrol-retirement-system-ohio-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack