Opinion

State ex rel. Manuel v. Stenson

  • 126 Ohio St. 3d 52
  • 2010 Ohio 2673
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Jun 16, 2010
Status
Published
On the bench
Brown, Pfeifer, Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp
Cited by
5 cases
Authority
More cited than 80.0%

The opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Manuel v. Stenson, 126 Ohio St.3d 52, 2010-Ohio-2673.]

THE STATE EX REL. MANUEL, APPELLANT, v. STENSON, APPELLEE.

[Cite as State ex rel. Manuel v. Stenson, 126 Ohio St.3d 52, 2010-Ohio-2673.]

Appellate procedure — Untimely appeal dismissed — S.Ct.Prac.R. 2.2(A)(1).

(No. 2010-0248 — Submitted June 9, 2010 — Decided June 16, 2010.)

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 23583.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We dismiss the appeal of appellant, Michael Manuel, because

although he challenges the court of appeals’ November 10, 2009 judgment

denying his petition for a writ of mandamus, he failed to file a timely appeal from

that judgment. S.Ct.Prac.R. 2.2(A)(1). His amended motion for rehearing,

whether construed as a motion for reconsideration or a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for

relief from judgment, did not extend his time to appeal the judgment. State ex rel.

Martin v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 124 Ohio St.3d 63, 2009-Ohio-6164, 918

N.E.2d 1005, ¶ 1. Manuel cannot use Civ.R. 60(B) as a substitute for a timely

appeal. Id.

Appeal dismissed.

BROWN, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR,

O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur.

__________________

Michael Manuel, pro se.

______________________

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.