Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sadlowski v. Boardman Local Schools

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District

June 7, 2013

H.R. SADLOWSKI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
BOARDMAN LOCAL SCHOOLS, et al., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court, Case No. 11 CV 1790.

For Plaintiff-Appellant: Attorney Robert Rohrbaugh, II

For Defendants-Appellees: Attorney David Kane Smith Attorney Linsday Gingo Attorney Miriam Pearlmutter Britton, Smith, Peters & Kalail Co. LPA

JUDGES: Hon. Mary DeGenaro Hon. Gene Donofrio Hon. Joseph J. Vukovich

OPINION

DeGenaro, P.J.

{¶1} Plaintiff-Appellant, H.R. Sadlowski, appeals the decision of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas, granting judgment on the pleadings to Defendants-Appellees, Boardman Local Schools, Randall Ebie, Joseph Maroni, Mindy DiPietro, and Anne Bott. On appeal, Sadlowski argues that the trial court erred by adopting the magistrate's decision granting Boardman's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Because Sadlowski raised specific substantive arguments for the first time in these proceedings on appeal, rather than in support of her objections to the magistrate's decision before the trial court, Civ. R. 53 dictates that they cannot be addressed on appeal by this court. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶2} On June 2, 2011, Sadlowski filed a seven count complaint in the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas against the Boardman Local Schools, the principal, vice-principal and two guidance counselors of Boardman Center Middle School. Substantively, Sadlowski claims that she was harassed, bullied, and intimidated both on and off school grounds, and that Boardman failed to take any action. Boardman filed an answer denying all substantive allegations, and on February 15, 2012, it filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which Sadlowski opposed.

{¶3} The magistrate granted Boardman's motion, issuing findings of fact and conclusions of law on April 16, 2012 and Sadlowski filed objections to this decision on April 19, 2012. However, the magistrate's decision was not filed until May 24, 2012; thus, the trial court notified Sadlowski that the objections would need to be refiled, which was done on May 31, 2012.

{¶4} Both objections were a mere two sentences in length; substantively identical, excepting the date of the magistrate's decision being objected to; and neither a factual nor legal error by the magistrate as a basis for the objections was specified:

* * * and pursuant to Civ. R 53 files the herein objections to the magistrate's decision entered into the [sixteenth (16th) day of April] [twenty fourth (24th) day of May] 2012, in the above captioned matter. Supplemental grounds to be filed.

{¶5} Supplemental grounds were never filed. On June 29, 2012, the trial court considered Sadlowski's objections, finding that "Plaintiffs' [sic] Objections are deficient in that they are not specific or stated with particularity all grounds upon which they were based as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(ii)." The magistrate's decision was adopted by the trial court in its entirety and Sadlowski's complaint was dismissed.

Judgment on the Pleadings

{¶6} In her sole assignment of error, Sadlowski ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.