Manogg v. Wisniewski , 2012 Ohio 3702 ( 2012 )

[Cite as Manogg v. Wisniewski, 2012-Ohio-3702.]
COURT OF APPEALS
LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
PHILIP S. MANOGG JUDGES:
Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
Defendant-Appellant Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J.
-vs-
Case No. 12-CA-38
MINDY WISNIEWSKI
Plaintiff-Appellee OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Licking County Municipal
Court, Case No. 05 CVI 00849
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 14, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Defendant-Appellant For Plaintiff-Appellee
PHILIP S. MANOGG, PRO SE MINDY WISNIEWSKI
c/o P.O. Box 855 107 Rolling Meadow Court
Newark, Ohio 43058-0855 Pickerington, OH 43147
Licking County, Case No. 12-CA-38 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Philip Scott Manogg appeals the April 10, 2012
Judgment Entry entered by the Civil Division of the Municipal Court of Licking County,
which found he had been properly served in the underlying action. Plaintiff-appellee is
Mindy Wisniewski.
{¶2} Appellee did not file a reply brief in this appeal. Pursuant to App.R. 18(C),
this Court accepts Appellant’s statement of the facts and issues as correct.1
{¶3} This case comes to us on the accelerated and is calendar and is governed
by App.R. 11.1, which states the following in pertinent part:
{¶4} “(E) Determination and judgment on appeal
{¶5} “The appeal will be determined as provided by App. R. 11.1. It shall be
sufficient compliance with App. R. 12(A) for the statement of the reason for the court's
decision as to each error to be in brief and conclusionary form.
{¶6} The decision may be by judgment entry in which case it will not be
published in any form.
{¶7} We dismiss Appellant’s appeal for lack of a final appealable order. Our
reason follows.
{¶8} In its Judgment Entry dated April 10, 2012, after finding Appellant had
been properly served, the trial court scheduled an oral hearing on Appellant’s motion for
relief from judgment to be held May 21, 2012. Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal on
May 4, 2012, and requested a continuance of the trial court hearing. The trial court
granted Appellant’s request.
1
For a statement of the case, see this Court’s Opinion in Wisniewski v. Manogg, 2012-
Ohio-1081.
Licking County, Case No. 12-CA-38 3
{¶9} Because the trial court entry does not determine Appellant’s motion for
relief from judgment nor prevent Appellant relief thereunder, we find this Court lacks
jurisdiction pursuant to R.C. 2505.02.
{¶10} Appellant’s appeal is ordered to be dismissed.
By: Hoffman, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Edwards, J. concur
s/ William B. Hoffman _________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ W. Scott Gwin_____________________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
s/ Julie A. Edwards___________________
HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS
Licking County, Case No. 12-CA-38 4
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
PHILIP S. MANOGG :
:
Defendant-Appellant :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
MINDY WISNIEWSKI :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee : Case No. 12-CA-38
For the reason stated in our accompanying Opinion, this appeal is ordered
dismissed. Costs assessed to Appellant.
s/ William B. Hoffman _________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ W. Scott Gwin _____________________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
s/ Julie A. Edwards___________________
HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS