[Cite as State v. Tigner, 2026-Ohio-519.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2025-L-092 CITY OF WICKLIFFE,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the Willoughby Municipal Court - vs -
DEREK W. TIGNER, Trial Court No. 2024 TRD 05073
Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Decided: February 17, 2026 Judgment: Affirmed
Michael Kenny, City of Wickliffe Prosecutor, and Eric R. Fink, 11 South River Street, Kent, OH 44240 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Derek W. Tigner, pro se, 9500 Wade Park Avenue, Apt. 1216, Cleveland, OH 44106 (Defendant-Appellant).
MATT LYNCH, P.J.
{¶1} This case is before us on the pro se appeal of Derek W. Tigner from the
judgment of the Willoughby Municipal Court overruling his “Motion to Reconsider” and
affirming the magistrate’s decision, thereby convicting him of two minor misdemeanors in
violation of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Willoughby. We affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
{¶2} On November 4, 2024, the State of Ohio/City of Wickliffe filed a traffic
citation in the Willoughby Municipal Court, alleging that on November 2, 2024, Tigner
failed to stop at a stop sign, in violation of Willoughby Cod.Ord. 331.19 (Count 1), and failed to display a valid driver’s license, in violation of Willoughby Cod.Ord. 335.06 (Count
2). The citation set a court date of November 14, 2024, at which Tigner was not required
to personally appear. On November 14, 2024, Tigner appeared in court, pro se, and
entered pleas of not guilty.
{¶3} On February 5, 2025, the matter proceeded to a bench trial before the
magistrate. After hearing the evidence, the magistrate issued a decision finding Tigner
guilty of both counts. The magistrate imposed a fine of $100.00 on Count 1 and $400.00
on Count 2, plus court costs.
{¶4} On February 6, 2025, the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision in a
separate judgment entry.
{¶5} On February 18, 2025, Tigner filed a general motion form, docketed as a
“Motion to Drop the Case.” The City of Wickliffe did not respond to the motion. The trial
court overruled this motion on February 24, 2025. Tigner did not appeal this decision.
{¶6} On March 31, 2025, Tigner filed a general motion form, docketed as a
“Motion Requesting the Court to Reconsider its Ruling.” The trial court did not consider
this motion, as it was not signed by Tigner and lacked a completed certificate of service.
{¶7} On April 15, 2025, Tigner filed a general motion form, docketed as a “Motion
to Reconsider Ruling.” The City of Wickliffe did not respond to the motion. It is apparent
the trial court considered this motion as the filing of objections to the magistrate’s decision,
overlooking the fact that it was filed untimely under Crim.R. 19. The trial court overruled
Tigner’s motion on July 9, 2025, stating that after an independent review of the pleadings,
exhibits, magistrate’s decision, and motion—no transcript having been filed—the court
PAGE 2 OF 6
Case No. 2025-L-092 found no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the magistrate’s decision. The
court therefore affirmed its judgment entry that adopted the magistrate’s decision.
{¶8} On July 29, 2025, Tigner filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s July
9, 2025 judgment entry. He presents three assignments of error for our review.
{¶9} Under his first and second assignments of error, Tigner argues that the trial
court erred in denying his “motion to reconsider.” Tigner claims that the magistrate’s
decision contradicts the exculpatory dashcam footage, which clearly shows a complete
stop was made prior to the stop sign, and that due process demands such evidence be
weighed.
{¶10} Magistrates are permitted to hear traffic cases, and Crim.R. 19 controls
those proceedings. See Traf.R. 14. Under Crim.R. 19, “An objection to a magistrate’s
decision shall be specific and state with particularity all grounds for objection.” Crim.R.
19(D)(3)(b)(ii). “An objection to a factual finding, whether or not specifically designated
as a finding of fact under Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(a)(ii), shall be supported by a transcript of all
the evidence submitted to the magistrate relevant to that finding or an affidavit of that
evidence if a transcript is not available.” Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(b)(iii). “The objecting party
shall file the transcript or affidavit with the court within thirty days after filing objections
unless the court extends the time in writing for preparation of the transcript or other good
cause.” Id.
{¶11} In his motion, Tigner requested the trial court to reconsider the magistrate’s
factual finding of guilt based on photo and video evidence submitted at the bench trial.
The trial court considered Tigner’s motion as an objection to the magistrate’s decision.
However, Tigner failed to support his filing with the transcript or an affidavit of all the
PAGE 3 OF 6
Case No. 2025-L-092 evidence that was submitted to the magistrate. Nor did Tigner request an extension of
time within which to prepare the transcript.
{¶12} When a party objecting to a magistrate’s decision has failed to provide the
trial court with the evidence and documents by which the court could make a finding
independent of the magistrate’s decision, appellate review of the court’s findings is limited
to whether the trial court abused its discretion in adopting the magistrate’s decision. State
ex rel. Duncan v. Chippewa Twp. Trs., 73 Ohio St.3d 728, 730 (1995). “In other words,
an appeal under these circumstances can be reviewed by the appellate court to determine
whether the trial court’s application of the law to its factual findings constituted an abuse
of discretion.” Id. “When applying the abuse of discretion standard, a reviewing court
may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.” Id. at 732.
{¶13} Because Tigner relies on evidence from the bench trial held before the
magistrate, which was not before the trial court in ruling on Tigner’s objection to the
magistrate’s decision, his argument must fail. See id. at 730; State v. Harrison, 2020-
Ohio-3817, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Williams, 2014-Ohio-3169, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.),
citing Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (1980) (“Due to the lack of a
transcript, ‘we have no record of the evidence presented to the magistrate and the trial
court . . . and we cannot review their factual findings.’”); see also State v. Ishmail, 54 Ohio
St.2d 402 (1978), paragraph one of the syllabus (“A reviewing court cannot add matter to
the record before it, which was not a part of the trial court’s proceedings, and then decide
the appeal on the basis of the new matter.”). Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the
trial court abused its discretion in adopting the magistrate’s decision finding Tigner guilty
of both counts as charged.
PAGE 4 OF 6
Case No. 2025-L-092 {¶14} The first and second assignments of error are without merit.
{¶15} Under his third assignment of error, Tigner contends that “[t]he appeal was
delayed due to incorrect instructions from court clerks and a documented family
emergency. Appellant acted in good faith and attempted filing on time. Ohio courts have
permitted delayed appeals under exceptional circumstances, and justice demands that
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Tigner, 2026-Ohio-519.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2025-L-092 CITY OF WICKLIFFE,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the Willoughby Municipal Court - vs -
DEREK W. TIGNER, Trial Court No. 2024 TRD 05073
Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Decided: February 17, 2026 Judgment: Affirmed
Michael Kenny, City of Wickliffe Prosecutor, and Eric R. Fink, 11 South River Street, Kent, OH 44240 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Derek W. Tigner, pro se, 9500 Wade Park Avenue, Apt. 1216, Cleveland, OH 44106 (Defendant-Appellant).
MATT LYNCH, P.J.
{¶1} This case is before us on the pro se appeal of Derek W. Tigner from the
judgment of the Willoughby Municipal Court overruling his “Motion to Reconsider” and
affirming the magistrate’s decision, thereby convicting him of two minor misdemeanors in
violation of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Willoughby. We affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
{¶2} On November 4, 2024, the State of Ohio/City of Wickliffe filed a traffic
citation in the Willoughby Municipal Court, alleging that on November 2, 2024, Tigner
failed to stop at a stop sign, in violation of Willoughby Cod.Ord. 331.19 (Count 1), and failed to display a valid driver’s license, in violation of Willoughby Cod.Ord. 335.06 (Count
2). The citation set a court date of November 14, 2024, at which Tigner was not required
to personally appear. On November 14, 2024, Tigner appeared in court, pro se, and
entered pleas of not guilty.
{¶3} On February 5, 2025, the matter proceeded to a bench trial before the
magistrate. After hearing the evidence, the magistrate issued a decision finding Tigner
guilty of both counts. The magistrate imposed a fine of $100.00 on Count 1 and $400.00
on Count 2, plus court costs.
{¶4} On February 6, 2025, the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision in a
separate judgment entry.
{¶5} On February 18, 2025, Tigner filed a general motion form, docketed as a
“Motion to Drop the Case.” The City of Wickliffe did not respond to the motion. The trial
court overruled this motion on February 24, 2025. Tigner did not appeal this decision.
{¶6} On March 31, 2025, Tigner filed a general motion form, docketed as a
“Motion Requesting the Court to Reconsider its Ruling.” The trial court did not consider
this motion, as it was not signed by Tigner and lacked a completed certificate of service.
{¶7} On April 15, 2025, Tigner filed a general motion form, docketed as a “Motion
to Reconsider Ruling.” The City of Wickliffe did not respond to the motion. It is apparent
the trial court considered this motion as the filing of objections to the magistrate’s decision,
overlooking the fact that it was filed untimely under Crim.R. 19. The trial court overruled
Tigner’s motion on July 9, 2025, stating that after an independent review of the pleadings,
exhibits, magistrate’s decision, and motion—no transcript having been filed—the court
PAGE 2 OF 6
Case No. 2025-L-092 found no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the magistrate’s decision. The
court therefore affirmed its judgment entry that adopted the magistrate’s decision.
{¶8} On July 29, 2025, Tigner filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s July
9, 2025 judgment entry. He presents three assignments of error for our review.
{¶9} Under his first and second assignments of error, Tigner argues that the trial
court erred in denying his “motion to reconsider.” Tigner claims that the magistrate’s
decision contradicts the exculpatory dashcam footage, which clearly shows a complete
stop was made prior to the stop sign, and that due process demands such evidence be
weighed.
{¶10} Magistrates are permitted to hear traffic cases, and Crim.R. 19 controls
those proceedings. See Traf.R. 14. Under Crim.R. 19, “An objection to a magistrate’s
decision shall be specific and state with particularity all grounds for objection.” Crim.R.
19(D)(3)(b)(ii). “An objection to a factual finding, whether or not specifically designated
as a finding of fact under Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(a)(ii), shall be supported by a transcript of all
the evidence submitted to the magistrate relevant to that finding or an affidavit of that
evidence if a transcript is not available.” Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(b)(iii). “The objecting party
shall file the transcript or affidavit with the court within thirty days after filing objections
unless the court extends the time in writing for preparation of the transcript or other good
cause.” Id.
{¶11} In his motion, Tigner requested the trial court to reconsider the magistrate’s
factual finding of guilt based on photo and video evidence submitted at the bench trial.
The trial court considered Tigner’s motion as an objection to the magistrate’s decision.
However, Tigner failed to support his filing with the transcript or an affidavit of all the
PAGE 3 OF 6
Case No. 2025-L-092 evidence that was submitted to the magistrate. Nor did Tigner request an extension of
time within which to prepare the transcript.
{¶12} When a party objecting to a magistrate’s decision has failed to provide the
trial court with the evidence and documents by which the court could make a finding
independent of the magistrate’s decision, appellate review of the court’s findings is limited
to whether the trial court abused its discretion in adopting the magistrate’s decision. State
ex rel. Duncan v. Chippewa Twp. Trs., 73 Ohio St.3d 728, 730 (1995). “In other words,
an appeal under these circumstances can be reviewed by the appellate court to determine
whether the trial court’s application of the law to its factual findings constituted an abuse
of discretion.” Id. “When applying the abuse of discretion standard, a reviewing court
may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.” Id. at 732.
{¶13} Because Tigner relies on evidence from the bench trial held before the
magistrate, which was not before the trial court in ruling on Tigner’s objection to the
magistrate’s decision, his argument must fail. See id. at 730; State v. Harrison, 2020-
Ohio-3817, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Williams, 2014-Ohio-3169, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.),
citing Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (1980) (“Due to the lack of a
transcript, ‘we have no record of the evidence presented to the magistrate and the trial
court . . . and we cannot review their factual findings.’”); see also State v. Ishmail, 54 Ohio
St.2d 402 (1978), paragraph one of the syllabus (“A reviewing court cannot add matter to
the record before it, which was not a part of the trial court’s proceedings, and then decide
the appeal on the basis of the new matter.”). Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the
trial court abused its discretion in adopting the magistrate’s decision finding Tigner guilty
of both counts as charged.
PAGE 4 OF 6
Case No. 2025-L-092 {¶14} The first and second assignments of error are without merit.
{¶15} Under his third assignment of error, Tigner contends that “[t]he appeal was
delayed due to incorrect instructions from court clerks and a documented family
emergency. Appellant acted in good faith and attempted filing on time. Ohio courts have
permitted delayed appeals under exceptional circumstances, and justice demands that
Appellant be heard.” Tigner claims that he “made every effort to file the appeal but was
directed to the wrong address on two separate occasions . . ., resulting in confusion and
delay.”
{¶16} “[A] party who wishes to appeal from an order that is final upon its entry
shall file the notice of appeal required by App.R. 3 within 30 days of that entry.” App.R.
4(A)(1). Tigner filed his appeal within 30 days of the trial court’s final judgment, rendering
it timely under App.R. 4(A)(1). Accordingly, Tigner’s argument lacks factual foundation
and presents no legal basis upon which this court could possibly provide relief.
{¶17} The third assignment of error is not well taken.
{¶18} The judgment of the Willoughby Municipal Court is affirmed.
JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,
SCOTT LYNCH, J.,
concur.
PAGE 5 OF 6
Case No. 2025-L-092 JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in the opinion of this court, appellant’s assignments of error
are without merit. It is the judgment and order of this court that the judgment of the
Willoughby Municipal Court is affirmed.
Costs to be taxed against appellant.
PRESIDING JUDGE MATT LYNCH
JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND, 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 6 OF 6
Case No. 2025-L-092