Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Ashtabula
Appeals from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2018 CV
Javonte Lacy, pro se, (Plaintiff-Appellant).
Jeffrey Holland, Holland and Muirden, (For
Defendant-Appellee, Animal Protective League).
Nicholas A. Iarocci, and Catherine R. Colgan, (For
Defendant-Appellee, State of Ohio).
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.
Appellant, Javonte Lacy, filed a pro se appeal from two
entries of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, in
which the court granted the motion to dismiss filed by
appellee, the state of Ohio, and granted the motion for
summary judgment filed by appellee, Animal Protective League
A review of the docket reveals that on February 6, 2018, Mr.
Lacy filed a civil complaint against appellees seeking
replevin for the return of certain animals or damages in the
amount of $10,200. APL filed its answer and a counterclaim.
APL also filed a motion for default judgment on its
counterclaim along with a motion for summary judgment. On
August 13, 2018, the state of Ohio filed a motion to dismiss
alleging that Mr. Lacy failed to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted.
In a January 29, 2019 entry, the trial court granted the
state of Ohio's motion to dismiss. Mr. Lacy appealed that
entry, and that appeal was assigned Case No. 2019-A-0030. In
an entry dated April 1, 2019, the trial court granted the
APL's motion for summary judgment and granted APL's
default judgment. The trial court set a "hearing on
damages on [Animal Protective League's] counterclaim and
[its] request for attorney fees * * *." To date there
has been no ruling on the damages from APL's
counterclaim. Mr. Lacy also appealed that entry, and that
appeal was assigned Case No. 2019-A-0046. Upon Mr. Lacy's
request, this court consolidated the two appeals.
On June 5, 2019, APL filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.
Mr. Lacy responded to the motion to dismiss on June 19, 2019.
Initially, we must determine whether there is a final,
appealable order, as this court may entertain only those
appeals from final judgments or orders. Noble v.
Colwell, 44 Ohio St.3d 92, 96 (1989). According to
Section 3(B)(2), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution, a
judgment of a trial court can be immediately reviewed by an
appellate court only if it constitutes a "final order in
the action. Germ v. Fuerst, 11th Dist. Lake No.
2003-L-116, 2003-Ohio-6241, ¶ 3. If a lower court's
order is not final, then an appellate court does not have
jurisdiction to review the matter, and the matter must be
dismissed. Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am.,
44 Ohio St.3d 17, 20 (1989). For a judgment to be final and
appealable, it must satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2505.02
and if applicable, Civ.R. 54(B). See Children's Hosp.
Med. Ctr. v. Tomaiko, 11th Dist. Portage No.
2011-P-0103, 2011-Ohio-6838, ¶ 3.
R.C. 2505.02(B) defines a final order as one of the
"An order is a final order that may be reviewed,
affirmed, modified, or reversed, with or without retrial,
when it is one of the following:
"(1) An order that affects a substantial right in an
action that in effect determines the action and prevents a
"(2) An order that affects a substantial right made in a
special proceeding or upon a summary ...