State ex rel. Muhammad v. State

2012 Ohio 4767, 979 N.E.2d 296, 133 Ohio St. 3d 508
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 18, 2012
Docket2012-1035
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 2012 Ohio 4767 (State ex rel. Muhammad v. State) 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. Muhammad v. State, 2012 Ohio 4767, 979 N.E.2d 296, 133 Ohio St. 3d 508 (Ohio 2012).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment dismissing the petition of appellant, Mustafa Muhammad, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, the state of Ohio, to hear his “writ of replevin motion for order of possession,” which was filed in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.

{¶ 2} Muhammad’s noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(C) justified the court’s dismissal of his mandamus petition. State ex rel. Castro v. Corrigan, 129 Ohio St.3d 342, 2011-Ohio-4059, 952 N.E.2d 497, ¶ 2.

{¶ 3} Muhammad claims on appeal that an internal prison policy prevented him from personally enclosing the required prison cashier’s statement with his petition when it was sent to the clerk of the court of appeals for filing, and thus any error must have been made by prison officials. Muhammad waived this argument on appeal, however, by failing to specifically raise this claim in his objections to the magistrate’s decision in the court of appeals. State ex rel. Maroon v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol Retirement Sys., 132 Ohio St.3d 287, 2012-Ohio-2679, 971 N.E.2d 918, ¶ 2, citing Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv) and Loc.R. 12(M)(1) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals; see also Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(ii) (“An objection to a magistrate’s decision shall be specific and state with particularity all grounds for objection”). Nor did Muhammad present any evidence in the court of appeals supporting this contention. See State ex rel. Wells v. Jefferson Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 122 Ohio St.3d 39, 2009-Ohio-2358, 907 N.E.2d 1166 (appellant seeking writs of mandamus and procedendo cannot add new matter to the record on appeal to support his claims).

*509 Mustafa Muhammad, pro se.

{¶ 4} Therefore, the court of appeals properly dismissed Muhammad’s petition, and we affirm the court’s dismissal.

Judgment affirmed.

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

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

Related

State ex rel. Walker v. Bolin
2024 Ohio 5126 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2024)
State ex rel. Davenport v. Tyack
2024 Ohio 2977 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
Howard v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
2024 Ohio 1948 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
Hayes v. Baldwin
2024 Ohio 928 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
Redmond v. Wade
2017 Ohio 2877 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2017)
Franchuk v. Franchuk
2016 Ohio 7563 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2016)
Sinkovitz v. Sinkovitz
2016 Ohio 2861 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2016)
Helton v. U.S. Restoration & Remodeling, Inc.
2016 Ohio 1232 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2016)
Miller v. Miller
2014 Ohio 5127 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2014)
PHH Mtge. Corp. v. Ramsey
2014 Ohio 3519 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2014)
Faulks v. Flynn
2014 Ohio 1610 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2012 Ohio 4767, 979 N.E.2d 296, 133 Ohio St. 3d 508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-muhammad-v-state-ohio-2012.