Geauga Cty. Bd. of Health v. Echols , 2024 Ohio 1117 ( 2024 )

[Cite as Geauga Cty. Bd. of Health v. Echols, 2024-Ohio-1117.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
GEAUGA COUNTY
GEAUGA COUNTY CASE NO. 2024-G-0008
BOARD OF HEALTH, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, Civil Appeal from the
Court of Common Pleas
- vs -
SELLIE ECHOLS, Trial Court No. 2023 M 000463
Defendant,
ROBERT ECHOLS,
Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM
OPINION
Decided: March 25, 2024
Judgment: Appeal dismissed
James R. Flaiz, Geauga County Prosecutor, Courthouse Annex, 231 Main Street, Suite
3A, Chardon, OH 44024 (For Plaintiffs-Appellees).
R. Russell Kubyn, Kubyn & Ghaster, 8373 Mentor Avenue, Mentor, OH 44060 (For
Defendant-Appellant).
ROBERT J. PATTON, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Robert Echols, appeals from the February 9, 2024 judgment of
the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons discussed, we conclude
the judgment at issue is not final and therefore not appealable at this time. The appeal is
accordingly dismissed.
{¶2} In August 2023, appellees, the Geauga County Board of Health and the
Chardon Township Board of Trustees, filed a complaint for injunctive relief against
appellant and Sellie Echols for solid and hazardous waste violations along with township
zoning violations. During the pendency of the proceedings, appellant filed a motion to
remove and/or disqualify the magistrate asserting that the magistrate was prejudicial
against appellant’s counsel and cannot impartially preside over the case.
{¶3} The trial court subsequently denied the motion. Appellant appeals from that
judgment.
{¶4} It is well settled that an appellate court does not have jurisdiction to review
a lower court’s order that is not final. Noble v. Colwell, 44 Ohio St.3d 92, 96. For a
judgment to be final and appealable, it must satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2505.02.
See Children’s Hospital Med. Ctr. v. Tomaiko, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2011-P-0103, 2011-
Ohio-6838.
{¶5} Pursuant to R.C. 2505.02(B)(2), an order is final and appealable “if it affects
a substantial right made in a special proceeding.” A “[s]pecial proceeding” is “an action
or proceeding that is specially created by statute and that prior to 1853 was not denoted
as an action at law or a suit in equity.” R.C. 2505.02(A)(2). A substantial right is one that
“the United States Constitution, the Ohio Constitution, a statute, the common law, or a
rule of procedure entitles a person to enforce or protect.” R.C. 2505.02(A)(1).
{¶6} This court has stated that the denial of appellant’s motion to remove a
magistrate does not affect a substantial right. See Lindsey v. Lindsey, 11th Dist. Geauga
No. 2020-G-0250, 2020-G-3567.
2
Case No. 2024-G-0008
{¶7} Furthermore, this court has concluded that an entry denying a motion to
recuse a magistrate is not immediately appealable where other issues are pending in the
trial court. In Aloi v. Enervest, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2011-P-0023, 2011-Ohio-5112, this
court stated that a “judgment entry overruling the motion to recuse a common pleas judge
and disqualify a magistrate is not a final appealable order.” Here, the claims raised in the
complaint have not yet been resolved.
{¶8} Accordingly, in the instant matter, we conclude the trial court’s judgment
denying the motion to remove and/or disqualify the magistrate is not a final, appealable
order.
{¶9} Appeal dismissed.
EUGENE A. LUCCI, P.J.,
JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,
concur.
3
Case No. 2024-G-0008