Pinkney v. Brown , 2011 Ohio 6262 ( 2011 )

[Cite as Pinkney v. Brown, 2011-Ohio-6262.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 96245
PAMELA M. PINKNEY
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
vs.
RICKEY G. BROWN, ET AL.
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
JUDGMENT:
DISMISSED
Civil Appeal from the
2
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court
Domestic Relations Division
Case No. CP-D-333483
BEFORE: E. Gallagher, J., Jones, P.J., and Rocco, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 8, 2011
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Pamela M. Pinkney, pro se
P.O. Box 5672
Cleveland, Ohio 44101
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES
Rickey G. Brown, pro se
1959 Amelia Court
Miamisburg, Ohio 45342
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.:
{¶ 1} This is an accelerated appeal brought pursuant to App.R. 11.1
and Local App.R. 11.1.
{¶ 2} Rev. Pamela M. Pinkney (“Pinkney”) appeals from the decision of
the trial court, denying her motion for a domestic violence civil protection
order. Pinkney argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant her a
3
civil protection order and that such error has placed her life and the lives of
her four children at risk. For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the instant
appeal.
{¶ 3} On April 22, 2011, this court, sua sponte, struck Pinkney’s
appellate brief for failing to conform with the requirements of App.R. 16(A),
which requires that each brief filed with this court contain the following
elements: (1) table of contents; (2) table of cases; (3) statement of
assignments of error presented for review; (4) statement of issues raised by
each assignment of error; (5) statement of the case; (6) statement of the facts;
(7) individual argument with regard to each assignment of error; and (8) a
brief conclusion stating precise relief sought. This court granted Pinkney
leave to file a conforming brief with the following warning language: “The
failure to file a brief that complies with App.R. 16(A), which specifically
raises cognizable assignments of error and supporting argument, will result
in the dismissal of the appeal.”
{¶ 4} On June 14, 2011, Pinkney filed her revised brief. While
technically in compliance with the form requirements of App.R. 16(A),
Pinkney’s brief fails to state any cognizable assignments of error and does
not contain any real legal argument. Further, in putting forth this appeal,
appellant fails to cite any legal authority for her claims, a failure that allows
4
this court to disregard her arguments. App.R. 12(A)(2); App.R. 16(A)(7);
State v. Martin (July 12, 1999), Warren App. No. CA99-01-003, citing
Meerhoff v. Huntington Mtge. Co. (1995), 103 Ohio App.3d 164, 658 N.E.2d
1109; Siemientkowski v. State Farm Ins., Cuyahoga App. No. 85323,
2005-Ohio-4295. “If an argument exists that can support this assigned
error, it is not this court’s duty to root it out.” Cardone v. Cardone (May 6,
1998), Summit App. Nos. 18349 and 18673.
{¶ 5} Accordingly, Pinkney’s failure to set forth a complying brief
allows this court to dismiss the instant appeal. See N. Coast Cookies v.
Sweet Temptations (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 342, 476 N.E.2d 388.
Appeal dismissed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
LARRY A. JONES, P.J., and
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR