Hamilton v. Dolatowski, Unpublished Decision (3-8-2000)
Hamilton v. Dolatowski, Unpublished Decision (3-8-2000)
Opinion of the Court
This court "may summarily reject an appeal where the appellant fails to properly brief and argue * * * assignments of error in the manner required by the Appellate Rules." Ivery v.Ivery (Jan. 12, 2000), Summit App. No. 19410, unreported, quotingAdvertising Tapes, Inc. v. Misquitta (Apr. 15, 1998), Summit App. no. 18361, unreported. See, also, Loc.R. 7(F). These rules apply with equal force to pro se litigants:
"[w]hile insuring that pro se appellants * * * are afforded the same protections and rights prescribed in the appellate rules, we likewise hold them to the obligations contained therein." State v. Wayt (Mar. 20, 1991), Tuscarawas App. No. 90AP070045, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 1354, at *3-4. They are not to be accorded greater rights and must accept the results of their own mistakes and errors. Kilroy v. B.H. Lakeshore Co. (1996),
111 Ohio App.3d 357 ,363 [.]
Fairlawn v. Figitakis (Jan. 26, 2000), Summit App. No. 19467, unreported.
On October 19, 1999, Hamilton filed a document purporting to be an appellate brief. This document, however, failed to comply with the mandates of App.R. 16 and 19 and Loc.R. 7(A) in their entirety. This court is not charged with the duty of constructing an appellant's arguments. See State v. Vandal (Jan. 26, 2000), Medina App. No. 2983-M, unreported. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. See Loc.R. 7(F).
Appeal dismissed.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
Exceptions.
LYNN C. SLABY FOR THE COURT BAIRD, P.J., CARR, J., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.