Shutway v. Melvin , 2023 Ohio 4564 ( 2023 )

[Cite as Shutway v. Melvin, 2023-Ohio-4564.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY
JOHN ANTHONY SHUTWAY :
:
Appellant : C.A. No. 2023-CA-17
:
v. : Trial Court Case No. 22 CV 0029
:
MATTHEW MELVIN, ET AL. : (Civil Appeal from Common Pleas
: Court)
Appellees :
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on December 15, 2023
...........
JOHN ANTHONY SHUTWAY, Appellant, Pro Se
JEFFREY C. TURNER, DAWN M. FRICK and GABRIELLE E. KARL, Attorney for
Appellee Tri County Regional Jail
ANGELICA M. JARMUSZ, Attorney for Appellees Matthew Melvin, Matthew Larmee,
Josh Welty, Zac Prickett, Deputy Kemp, John McNeely, and Deputy Finfrock
PATRICK KASSON, THOMAS N. SPYKER and MAC MALONE, Attorneys for Appellees
Gregory Nelson, Chad Duncan, Champaign County Dispatch Center, Steve Molton, Mark
Feinstein, Roger Steffan, and Gil S. Weithman
.............
WELBAUM, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, John Anthony Shutway, appeals pro se from six judgments of the
-2-
Champaign County Court of Common Pleas that granted the appellees either judgment
on the pleadings or summary judgment on all of Shutway’s civil claims. The appellees
are comprised of the following individuals and institutions.
1. “County Officers”:
Champaign County Sheriff Matthew Melvin and Champaign County
Sheriff’s Deputies Matthew Larmee, Josh Welty, Zac Prickett, John
McNeely, and Deputy Kemp, and Logan County Sheriff’s Deputy Finfrock
2. “Tremont City Officers”:
Tremont City Police Chief Gregory Nelson and Tremont City Police
Sergeant Chad Duncan
3. “Dispatch Center”:
Champaign County Dispatch Center and dispatcher Steve Molton
4. “Prosecutors”:
Champaign County Prosecutors Roger Steffan and Mark Feinstein
5. “Tri-County Jail”:
Tri-County Regional Jail
6. “Judge Weithman”:
Champaign County Municipal Court Judge Gil S. Weithman
{¶ 2} For the reasons outlined below, all six of the trial court’s judgments granting
the dispositive motions of the appellees will be affirmed.
Facts and Course of Proceedings
-3-
{¶ 3} On March 3, 2022, Shutway filed a civil complaint in the Champaign County
Court of Common Pleas against the County Officers, Tremont Officers, Dispatch Center,
Prosecutors, Tri-County Jail, and Judge Weithman. The allegations of the complaint
sounded in tort, vicarious liability, and civil conspiracy. All of the allegations were related
to events surrounding Shutway’s arrest in Champaign County, Ohio, on March 20, 2018,
and his arrest in Logan County, Ohio, on May 9, 2018.
{¶ 4} On March 20, 2018, Shutway was arrested after he failed to pull his vehicle
over for a speeding violation in Tremont City, Clark County, Ohio, and led police officers
on a chase that ended in Champaign County. Following his arrest, Shutway was
charged in the Champaign County Municipal Court for several offenses and was released
on bond. The State thereafter dismissed the municipal court charges subject to the
jurisdiction of the Champaign County Court of Common Pleas, wherein Shutway was
indicted for the same incident on charges of failure to comply with the order or signal of a
police officer and obstructing official business. Because Shutway failed to appear at his
arraignment, a capias was issued for his arrest. Shutway was thereafter arrested on
May 9, 2018.
{¶ 5} Following a jury trial, Shutway was convicted of the indicted charges. On
appeal, this court affirmed Shutway’s convictions. State v. Shutway, 2d Dist. Champaign
No. 2018-CA-39, 2020-Ohio-5035. Shutway thereafter appealed to the Supreme Court
of Ohio, but the supreme court declined to review Shutway’s criminal appeal. State v.
Shutway, 161 Ohio St.3d 1441, 2021-Ohio-375, 162 N.E.3d 829.
{¶ 6} After the supreme court declined to review Shutway’s criminal appeal,
-4-
Shutway filed his civil complaint against the appellees. The supreme court assigned
retired Judge Linton D. Lewis to preside over the matter as visiting judge after Champaign
County Common Pleas Court Judge Nicholas A. Selvaggio recused himself. Following
his assignment, Judge Lewis issued a journal entry ordering his certificate of assignment
to be filed in Shutway’s civil case. The certificate of assignment was filed on April 11,
2022.
{¶ 7} Between April and June 2022, all of the defendants/appellees named in
Shutway’s complaint, excluding Judge Weithman, filed either a motion for judgment on
the pleadings or a motion for summary judgment arguing for the dismissal of Shutway’s
civil claims. In the motions, the defendants/appellees raised several arguments,
including that Shutway failed to state a claim, that the defendants/appellees were entitled
to immunity, and that Shutway’s claims were barred by res judicata, claim preclusion, and
the applicable statute of limitations.
{¶ 8} Before Judge Lewis ruled on the aforementioned motions, on August 4, 2022,
Shutway filed an affidavit of disqualification with the Supreme Court of Ohio that sought
to remove Judge Lewis from his case. In the affidavit, Shutway alleged that Judge Lewis
had failed to file an oath of office for his appointment as visiting judge. Shutway also
claimed that Judge Lewis’s certificate of assignment was not filed by the administrative
judge as required by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Guidelines for Assignment of Judges.
Shutway claimed that these failures warranted Judge Lewis’s removal because they
violated the Ohio Constitution, the Ohio Revised Code, and the aforementioned
guidelines.
-5-
{¶ 9} On August 15, 2022, the Supreme Court of Ohio denied Shutway’s affidavit
of disqualification and allowed the case to proceed before Judge Lewis. In re
Disqualification of Hon. Linton Lewis, Supreme Court of Ohio Case Nos. 22-AP-090 and
22-AP-091. In reaching that decision, the supreme court explained that “the
implementation of an oath requirement for retired assigned judges has been delayed.”
The supreme court also found that “[n]othing about the assignment process here
suggests that Judge Lewis would be unable to fairly and impartially preside over the
underlying matters.” Id.{¶ 10} Following the denial of Shutway’s affidavit of disqualification, between
September 6, 2022, and October 3, 2022, Judge Lewis issued separate judgments
granting each of the motions for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment filed
by the defendants/appellees. On October 19, 2022, Judge Weithman also filed a motion
for judgment on the pleadings, which Judge Lewis granted on April 10, 2023. As a result
of these judgments, all of Shutway’s civil claims against the defendants/appellees were
dismissed.
{¶ 11} Prior to that, Shutway filed a second affidavit of disqualification for the
removal of Judge Lewis on February 7, 2023. In the second affidavit, Shutway raised
the same arguments that were raised in his first affidavit. Shutway additionally argued
that Judge Lewis had demonstrated bias in favor of certain parties by accepting untimely
filings and by allegedly failing to require one of the parties to answer his complaint.
Judge Lewis filed a response denying any bias, prejudice, or favoritism toward any party
or attorney in Shutway’s case. Judge Lewis also submitted a copy of his retired assigned
-6-
judge oath of office. On February 23, 2023, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a decision
rejecting Shutway’s claims and denying his second affidavit of disqualification.
{¶ 12} After the supreme court denied Shutway’s second affidavit of
disqualification, and after Judge Lewis had granted all of the dispositive motions filed by
the defendants/appellees, on May 10, 2023, Shutway filed a timely notice of appeal from
each of the trial court’s judgments granting the dispositive motions. In support of his
appeal, Shutway filed an appellate brief raising four assignments of error for review.
Shutway’s assignments of error do not challenge the merits of the trial court’s judgments,
but rather raise arguments pertaining to alleged procedural deficiencies in Judge Lewis’s
assignment to his case and alleged errors committed by the Champaign County Clerk of
Courts.
Jurisdiction
{¶ 13} Before discussing Shutway’s assignments of error, we will first address
jurisdictional claims raised by some of the appellees herein. The first claim is that the
Supreme Court of Ohio’s rulings on Shutway’s affidavits of disqualification divested this
court of jurisdiction to address Shutway’s claims on appeal since all of his claims pertain
to Judge Lewis’s assignment. The appellees also argue that Shutway’s appeal must be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Shutway cannot enforce the authorities that he
cites and because he has not presented a reversible error.
{¶ 14} This court recently addressed the exact same jurisdictional arguments in
Shutway v. Talebi, 2d Dist. Champaign No. 2023-CA-14, 2023-Ohio-3818. In Talebi,
-7-
Shutway filed a civil complaint against Prosecutor Kevin S. Talebi, Magistrate Scott
Schockling, Assistant Prosecutor Samantha B. Whetherholt, and Judge Selvaggio. Id.
at ¶ 4. The Supreme Court of Ohio assigned Judge Lewis to that case as well and
Shutway attempted to have Judge Lewis removed by filing the same affidavit of
disqualification that he filed in this case on August 4, 2022. Id. at ¶ 5 and ¶ 12.
{¶ 15} Like the present case, Shutway was unsuccessful at having Judge Lewis
removed, and Judge Lewis thereafter granted summary judgment to Talebi, Schockling,
and Whetherholt, and a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal to Judge Selvaggio. Id. at ¶ 12-15.
Shutway appealed from those judgments and only raised claims pertaining to Judge
Lewis’s assignment as visiting judge. Id. at ¶ 17-18. In response to the appeal, the
appellees in Talebi raised the same jurisdictional arguments that are raised herein. Id.
at ¶ 28.
{¶ 16} When addressing the jurisdictional arguments, we noted in Talebi that “this
appellate court has subject matter jurisdiction over appeals from civil actions brought in
the Champaign County Court of Common Pleas.” Id. at ¶ 31, citing Ohio Constitution,
Article IV, Section 3; R.C. 2501.02(C). Similar to Talebi, the instant appeal is from the
trial court’s judgments granting judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment on
claims in a civil action.
{¶ 17} We also recognized in Talebi that “[w]hether an assigned judge has
authority to preside over a case generally may be raised on direct appeal.” Id. at ¶ 33,
citing State ex rel. Smith v. Triggs, Ohio Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3098, __ N.E.3d __,
¶ 7 (“Smith could have raised any issue regarding the transfer of his criminal case from
-8-
Judge Ruehlman to Judge Schweikert in a direct appeal, which constitutes an adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of the law.”); State ex rel. Key v. Spicer, 91 Ohio St.3d 469,
470, 746 N.E.2d 1119 (2001) (“[A] claim of improper assignment of a judge can generally
be adequately raised by way of appeal.”); State ex rel. Harris v. Turner, 160 Ohio St.3d
506, 2020-Ohio-2901, 159 N.E.3d 1121, ¶ 13; see also In re J.J., 111 Ohio St.3d 205,
2006-Ohio-5484, 855 N.E.2d 851, ¶ 8.
{¶ 18} Some of the appellees in this case argue that the decision in Lloyd v.
Thornsbery, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2019-P-0080, 2021-Ohio-239, supports their claim
that we lack jurisdiction to review a visiting judge’s assignment. In Talebi, we rejected
this argument on the following grounds:
[T]he Eleventh District [in Lloyd] relied on the law of the case doctrine
articulated in Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1, 462 N.E.2d 410 (1984).
Lloyd at ¶ 11. The law of the case doctrine functions to compel inferior
courts to follow the mandates of reviewing courts. State v. W.T.D., 2d Dist.
Montgomery No. 29238, 2022-Ohio-632, ¶ 18, citing Nolan at 3. It provides
that “the decision of a reviewing court in a case remains the law of that case
on the legal questions involved for all subsequent proceedings in the case
at both the trial and reviewing levels.” Nolan at 3. Therefore, “[a]bsent
extraordinary circumstances, such as an intervening decision by the
Supreme Court, an inferior court has no discretion to disregard the mandate
of a superior court in a prior appeal in the same case.” Id. at syllabus. The
law of the case doctrine does not deprive the inferior court of jurisdiction to
-9-
address the claim, such that the case must be dismissed.
(Emphasis added.) Talebi at ¶ 34.
{¶ 19} In addition, we explained in Talebi that:
“The constitutional and statutory responsibility of the Chief Justice
in ruling on an affidavit of disqualification is limited to determining whether
a judge in a pending case has a bias, prejudice, or other disqualifying
interest that mandates the judge’s disqualification from that case.” In re
Disqualification of Kate, 88 Ohio St.3d 1208, 1209-1210, 723 N.E.2d 1098(1999), citing Ohio Constitution, Art. IV, Section 5(C), and R.C. 2701.03.
Consistent with that limitation, we have previously held that “the
disqualification of a judge of a court of common pleas for bias and prejudice
is confided to the sole determination of the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court of Ohio, or a justice of the Ohio Supreme Court designated by the
Chief Justice to perform that function.” E.g., Hanselman v. Hanselman, 2d
Dist. Montgomery No. 21615, 2007-Ohio-183, ¶ 92. We have further
commented, however, that while we lack authority to determine whether a
trial court judge should be disqualified for bias or should recuse himself,
“[s]ome courts have recognized a distinction * * * where the question is not
prospective disqualification or recusal but whether the judge’s conduct
during trial deprived the defendant of his due process rights.” State v.
Evans, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 27178, 2017-Ohio-8184, ¶ 10, fn.3, citing
State v. Payne, 149 Ohio App.3d 368, 2002-Ohio-5180, 777 N.E.2d 333,
-10-
¶ 11 (7th Dist.); Dibert v. Carpenter, 2018-Ohio-1054, 98 N.E.3d 350, ¶ 72.
Talebi, 2d Dist. Champaign No. 2023-CA-14, 2023-Ohio-3818, at ¶ 35-36.
{¶ 20} In light of the foregoing principles, and in conformity with our decision in
Talebi, which addressed the exact same jurisdictional issue raised herein, we reject the
appellees’ argument that we must dismiss the appeal due to the Supreme Court of Ohio’s
rulings on Shutway’s affidavits of disqualification. While those rulings may govern our
resolution of the issues that Shutway has raised on appeal, we do not find that the rulings
deprive us of jurisdiction over the appeal. See id. at ¶ 32.
{¶ 21} We also reject the appellees’ argument that this court lacks jurisdiction due
to Shutway having “no ability to enforce the authorities he cites[,]” i.e., the Rules of
Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio, the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Guidelines for
Assignment of Judges, the Local Rules of the Champaign County Court of Common
Pleas, and the Ohio Constitution. As we explained in Talebi, “[w]hether Shutway can
enforce these rules goes to the merits of his assignments of error, not this appellate
court’s jurisdiction over the appeal.” Id. at ¶ 38.
{¶ 22} We further reject the appellees’ claim that this court lacks jurisdiction
because Shutway “has not presented a reversible error.” In Talebi, we rejected this
argument because it “raises questions regarding the merits of [Shutway’s] claims, not this
court's jurisdiction to address them.” Id.
{¶ 23} For all the foregoing reasons, the appellees’ claim that this appeal must be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction is not well taken.
-11-
First Assignment of Error
{¶ 24} Under his first assignment of error, Shutway claims that the administrative
judge, Judge Selvaggio, erred by failing to have Judge Lewis’s original certificate of
assignment filed with the clerk of courts as required by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s
Guidelines for Assignment of Judges. Shutway claims that the certificate of assignment
filed by Judge Lewis on April 11, 2022, violated those guidelines and was void of authority.
Shutway also claims that Judge Selvaggio violated the constitution by failing to administer
an oath of office to Judge Lewis for his appointment as a visiting retired judge.
{¶ 25} We addressed the exact same arguments in Talebi and rejected them.
Specifically, we found in Talebi that because Shutway had raised the same alleged
procedural deficiencies with Judge Lewis’s assignment in his August 4, 2022 affidavit of
disqualification, which was denied by the Supreme Court of Ohio, the law of the case
doctrine required this court to follow the supreme court’s ruling on the matter. Talebi, 2d
Dist. Champaign No. 2023-CA-14, 2023-Ohio-3818, at ¶ 40-42.
{¶ 26} As previously discussed, “[t]he law of the case doctrine functions to compel
inferior courts to follow the mandates of reviewing courts.” Id. at ¶ 34, citing State v.
W.T.D., 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 29238, 2022-Ohio-632, ¶ 18. (Other citation omitted.)
“It provides that ‘the decision of a reviewing court in a case remains the law of that case
on the legal questions involved for all subsequent proceedings in the case at both the trial
and reviewing levels.’ ” Id., quoting Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1, 3, 462 N.E.2d 410(1984).
{¶ 27} In this case, when denying Shutway’s first affidavit of disqualification, the
-12-
Supreme Court of Ohio concluded that Shutway had not established prejudice or bias on
Judge Lewis’s part. As noted in Talebi: “Although the focus of the [supreme court's]
review was for prejudice or bias, the supreme court expressly found that Shutway had not
established improprieties related to Judge Lewis’s assignment, and it permitted Judge
Lewis to continue to preside over the case.” Id. at ¶ 42.
{¶ 28} When denying Shutway’s second affidavit, which raised the same alleged
procedural deficiencies in Judge Lewis’s assignment, the supreme court declined to
readdress the matter. See In re Disqualification of Hon. Linton Lewis Jr., Supreme Court
of Ohio Case No. 23-AP-014 (Feb. 23, 2023). The supreme court also rejected
Shutway’s additional claim that Judge Lewis had demonstrated bias in favor of certain
parties. Id.
{¶ 29} In Talebi, we explained that because the supreme court expressly found
that Shutway had not established improprieties related to Judge Lewis’s assignment,
“under the law of the case doctrine, we must follow the supreme court’s determination.”
Talebi at ¶ 42. We also found that even if “we could consider Shutway’s arguments
anew, we [would] conclude that no reversible error exists.” Id.
{¶ 30} No reversible error exists because the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Guidelines
for Assignment of Judges “have not been adopted as rules and are not binding on Ohio
courts[.]” (Citations omitted.) Id. at ¶ 45. Therefore, although guideline 9.01(A)
(formally 5.01(A)) requires the administrative judge to “direct the original certificate of
assignment be filed with the clerk of court to which the assigned judge has been
assigned[,]” this court has recognized the validity of an assignment even when the
-13-
certificate of assignment has not been filed. Id. at ¶ 45, citing PNC Mtge. v. Guenther,
2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25385, 2013-Ohio-3044, ¶ 22, fn. 3. See also Marino v. Oriana
House, Inc., 9th Dist. Summit No. 23389, 2007-Ohio-1823, ¶ 9.
{¶ 31} There is also no reversible error with regard to Shutway’s argument that
Judge Selvaggio violated constitutional obligations by failing to administer an oath of
office to Judge Lewis. Article XV, Section 7 of the Ohio Constitution states that: “Every
person chosen or appointed to any office under this state, before entering upon the
discharge of its duties, shall take an oath or affirmation, to support the constitution of the
United States, and of this state, and also an oath of office.” R.C. 3.23 also requires each
judge to take the oath “on or before the first day of the judge’s official term” and it
addresses what the certificate of oath must contain, as well as when and to whom it must
be transmitted. However, in Talebi, we explained that “[n]either Article XV, Section 7 of
the Ohio Constitution nor R.C. 3.23 requires an additional oath of office to be administered
upon assignment as a retired judge.” (Citations omitted.) Talebi at ¶ 50. “ ‘[W]hen a
retired judge is assigned to active duty, that judge is resuming the duties in that office.
The judge’s original oath of office satisfies the requirement that a judge take an oath of
office before entering upon the discharge of his duties.’ ” Id., quoting State ex rel. Evans
v. Shoemaker, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 02AP-671, 2003-Ohio-757, ¶ 14.
{¶ 32} The record in Talebi (and in the present case) also established that Shutway
had received an e-mail from the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Chief Legal Counsel wherein
“[c]ounsel indicated that a requirement that retired assigned judges take a one-time oath
of office was not yet in effect.” Id. at ¶ 51. The supreme court’s judgment entry denying
-14-
Shutway’s first affidavit of disqualification also specifically stated that “the implementation
of an oath requirement for retired assigned judges has been delayed.” In re
Disqualification of Hon. Linton Lewis, Supreme Court of Ohio Case Nos. 22-AP-090 and
22-AP-091 (Aug. 15, 2022).
{¶ 33} Based on the foregoing, we held in Talebi that there was “no support for
Shutway’s assertion that Judge Lewis was required to take an oath of office when he was
assigned to this case.” Talebi at ¶ 51. We also found that “[e]ven if an oath requirement
existed for assigned retired judges, Shutway provides no authority for his contention that
Judge Selvaggio, who had recused himself from the case, had the responsibility to
administer the oath of office to Judge Lewis.” Id. at ¶ 52.
{¶ 34} Upon review, we reach the same conclusions that we reached in Talebi.
That is, under the law of the case doctrine, we must follow the Supreme Court of Ohio’s
decision finding no impropriety with regard to Judge Lewis’s assignment. In addition, we
find that the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Guidelines for Assignment of Judges are not binding
on this court, that there was no requirement for Judge Lewis to take an oath of office for
his assignment, and that Judge Selvaggio was not required to administer an oath of office
to Judge Lewis.
{¶ 35} For all the foregoing reasons, Shutway’s first assignment of error is
overruled.
Second Assignment of Error
{¶ 36} Under his second assignment of error, Shutway claims that Judge Lewis
-15-
erred and committed a fraud upon the court by exercising judicial duties before taking an
oath of office for his assignment as visiting retired judge. We reject this claim for the
reasons discussed under Shutway’s first assignment of error. As previously discussed,
Judge Lewis was not required to take an oath of office when he was assigned to this case.
Because no oath of office was required, Shutway’s claim that Judge Lewis erred and
committed a fraud upon the court by exercising judicial duties before taking an oath lacks
merit. Accordingly, Shutway’s second assignment of error is overruled.
Third and Fourth Assignments of Error
{¶ 37} Shutway’s third and fourth assignments of error both concern alleged errors
committed by the Champaign County Clerk of Courts (“the clerk”). Under his third
assignment of error, Shutway claims that the clerk erred by accepting entries from Judge
Lewis without first receiving his oath of office and an original certificate of assignment
from the administrative judge. In Talebi, we rejected the same argument and explained
that:
[T]he clerk of courts lacked the discretion to reject documents from
Judge Lewis for filing. “The clerk, as a ministerial officer of the court, has
a duty by law to accept and file documents tendered to him or her.” State
ex rel. Montgomery Cty. Pub. Defender v. Siroki, 108 Ohio St.3d 334, 2006-
Ohio-1065, 843 N.E.2d 778, ¶ 10, quoting Rhoades v. Harris, 135 Ohio
App.3d 555, 557, 735 N.E.2d 6 (1st Dist.1999). The clerk of courts is
authorized to refuse to accept for filing only documents submitted for filing
-16-
by a vexatious litigator who has failed to obtain leave to proceed under R.C.
2323.52. Id. at ¶ 10, citing R.C. 1907.20.
Talebi, 2d Dist. Champaign No. 2023-CA-14, 2023-Ohio-3818, at ¶ 54.
{¶ 38} Upon review, we reach the same conclusion that we reached in Talebi and
find that the clerk did not err by accepting Judge Lewis’s entries for filing.
{¶ 39} Under his fourth assignment of error, Shutway claims that the clerk erred by
improperly labeling three praecipes on the court’s docket. The praecipes in question
were all filed by Shutway. In the praecipes, Shutway sought to order the clerk to obtain
a copy of Judge Lewis’s oath of office, to remove Judge Lewis’s existing entries from the
docket, and to refuse to accept future submissions from Judge Lewis. The record
establishes that the clerk labeled all three praecipes as motions. By doing so, Shutway
claims that the clerk tampered with the record and improperly made judicial decisions.
{¶ 40} In Talebi, we rejected the same argument and found that: “Even if the clerk
should have labeled Shutway's filings differently on the docket, we find no prejudicial
error.” Talebi, 2d Dist. Champaign No. 2023-CA-14, 2023-Ohio-3818, at ¶ 53. We also
found that “Shutway had no authority to order the clerk of courts to reject filings from
Judge Lewis or to strike any of Judge Lewis’s filings.” Id.{¶ 41} Upon review, we agree with our analysis in Talebi and find no prejudicial
error with regard to how the clerk labeled Shutway’s praecipes on the docket. We also
agree that Shutway did not have authority to order the clerk to reject or strike Judge
Lewis’s filings.
{¶ 42} For the foregoing reasons, Shutway’s third and fourth assignments of error
-17-
are overruled.
Conclusion
{¶ 43} Having overruled all of Shutway’s assignments of error, the trial court’s six
judgments granting the appellees’ dispositive motions are affirmed.
.............
TUCKER, J. and EPLEY, J., concur.