Rogers v. Rogers , 2012 Ohio 6173 ( 2012 )

[Cite as Rogers v. Rogers, 2012-Ohio-6173.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
MARY C. ROGERS, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2012-02-027
: OPINION
- vs - 12/28/2012
:
GARY M. ROGERS, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION
Case No. DR97-02-0181
Gina Prall, Myron Wolf, 120 North Second Street, Hamilton, Ohio 45012, for plaintiff-appellee
Gary M. Rogers, 4972 Ivy Court, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, defendant-appellant, pro se
.............
HALL, J.
{¶ 1} Gary M. Rogers appeals from the trial court's January 11, 2012 judgment entry
designating him the residential parent and legal custodian of the parties' minor children and
overruling 25 pro se motions that he filed.
{¶ 2} Rogers advances two assignments of error in his pro se appeal. First, he
contends the trial court erred by overruling his "motion." Second, he claims the trial court
erred by denying his "final judgment entry." For her part, the appellee has not filed a brief.
Butler CA2012-02-027
{¶ 3} Rogers' first assignment of error relies exclusively on App.R. 26, which has no
applicability as it governs motions filed in a court of appeals, not in the trial court. Moreover,
the first assignment of error is devoid of cogent argument. One sentence states: "By
overruling the Motions before Court without any discussion or without all the facts for him to
make a decision or case law." A second sentence reads: "The Court's failure to sufficiently
not consider arguments on each motion it should have considered." Beyond these two
sentences, Rogers' appellate brief contains nothing but citations to App.R. 26 and to case
law that is not relevant to this appeal.
{¶ 4} This court is not obligated to review each of the 25 pro se motions the trial court
overruled in search of appealable issues. Absent any cogent argument from Rogers with
supporting citations to the record or relevant case law, we overrule his first assignment of
error.
{¶ 5} The second assignment of error is equally unpersuasive. Rogers appears to
complain about the trial court's failure to accept a proposed judgment entry from him. His
unedited argument is as follows:
Pro-Se had prepared the entry & presented it to case
management for approval on 12-5-11 and was put in order to be
looked at. On 12-6-11 case management again needed
corrections. Court refused to look at pro-se corrected copy of
Final Judgment Entry in court 12-6-11 @ 11am. And Court
asked had Plaintiff's counsel prepare entry & plaintiffs & asked to
have whom access cost to regarding preparing. In so ruling trial
court violated its own local Rule 7 section (A) the judgment entry
specified in Civil Rule 58 shall be filed and journalized within
thirty days of verdict, decree, or decision. If entry is not prepared
and presented by counsel, it shall be prepared and filed by the
st nd
COURT. (1 ) to be prepared by COURT, (2 ) pro-se never was
rd
ordered to prepare. (3 )prepared for Court & not accepted by
Court, (4th) plaintiff's counsel & judge had a private side bar
discussion before Court started, evidence by court
acknowledging gave copy to Myron Wolf whom wasn't even in
court 12-6-11.
-2-
Butler CA2012-02-027
Issue Number Two
In so ruling, the trial court violated its own local rules, the trial
court's dismissal of the motions on this procedural ground was
erroneous and should be overturned.
(Appellant's brief at 6-7).
{¶ 6} Having reviewed the record, we are unsure about the nature of Rogers'
complaint on appeal. Although we are not certain, he appears to believe the trial court erred
in rejecting a proposed pro se judgment entry from him. In any event, Rogers has failed to
demonstrate any reversible error. On January 11, 2012, the trial court filed a final judgment
entry that disposed of the issues before it. The entry appears to be regular on its face, and it
bears the judge's signature. We see nothing about the form of the entry itself that would
support a reversal of the trial court's judgment. Accordingly, the second assignment of error is
overruled.
{¶ 7} The judgment of the Butler County Domestic Relations Court is affirmed.
GRADY and DONOVAN, JJ., concur.
Judges Thomas J. Grady, Mary E. Donovan, and Michael T. Hall, from the Second
District Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of
Ohio pursuant to Section 5(A)(3) Article IV of the Ohio Constitution.
-3-