Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-793420
APPELLANT Raheem Muhammad, Pro Se.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael DeWine Ohio Attorney General BY: Patrick M. Dull Principal Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Section Karen Adonolfi
BEFORE: Rocco, J., Boyle, P.J., and EA. Gallagher, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.
(¶1} Petitioner-appellant Raheem Muhammad, proceeding pro se, appeals from the trial court order that granted the Civ.R. 12(B)(1) motion to dismiss his complaint that respondent-appellee the Ohio Civil Rights Commission (the "OCRC") filed.
(¶2} Appellant presents two assignments of error. He claims the trial court wrongfully dismissed his action and further claims that the Ohio Civil Rules that apply to service of actions filed pursuant to R.C. 4112.06(B) are unconstitutional.
(¶3} A review of the App.R. 9(A) record renders his first assignment of error unpersuasive. Moreover, the record reflects appellant failed to raise in the trial court the argument he makes in his second assignment of error; therefore, he has waived it for appellate purposes. Consequently, both of his assignments of error are overruled, and the trial court's order is affirmed.
(¶4} On September 28, 2012, appellant filed this action, pro se, in the common pleas court as a petition for judicial review of the OCRC decision mailed to him on September 6, 2012. The OCRC decided that there was "no probable cause" for it "to issue an administrative complaint accusing [T.D. Security Ltd., Inc.] of an unlawful discriminatory practice." The OCRC instead decided to dismiss appellant's complaint.
(¶ 5} In the caption of his petition, appellant named as the respondents in this action only the OCRC and several of its representatives. He merely alleged that his petition referred to the OCRC case of "Raheem Muhammad vs. T D. Security Limited, Incorporated, et al." He further alleged the OCRC's decision was "wrongfully entered, " that the decision was entered "without any input" from him, that he was "aggrieved" by the decision, and that the decision was unsupported by law.
(¶ 6} He attached to his petition a copy of the OCRC's decision that determined the action of appellant "v. T.D. Security Limited, Inc." The OCRC stated that it "found no information or records that would raise an inference that [T.D. Security Ltd., Inc.] unlawfully discriminated against" appellant. The OCRC informed appellant that his "right to obtain judicial review of this order and the mode and procedure thereof is set forth in R.C. 4112.06, " and "advised [him] to consult an attorney" on the process.
(¶ 7} Appellant also attached a "certificate of service" of his petition, stating that a copy had been:
served upon the following person(s) by either HAND DELIVERY AND/OR BY FACSIMILE AND/OR BY UNITED STATES FIRST CLASS MAIL, POSTAGE PREPAID ...