COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT 
                        COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 
                     NOS. 69604, 69613 & 69614
PERRY WALKER                  :    
                              :    ACCELERATED DOCKET
        Plaintiff-appellant   :
                              :      JOURNAL ENTRY
     -vs-                     :           AND
                              :         OPINION
GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL    :
  TRANSIT AUTHORITY, ET AL.   :
                              :        PER CURIAM 
        Defendants-appellees  :
                              :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
  OF DECISION:                     APRIL 11, 1996        
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:           Civil appeal from
                                   Court of Common Pleas
                                   Case Nos. 266254,
                                     246107 & 233051 
JUDGMENT:                          Affirmed.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:                                
APPEARANCES:
For plaintiff-appellant:      For defendants-appellees
                              GCRTA and Lawrence Gawell:
PERRY WALKER, PRO SE 
125 East 165th Street, #908   DOUGLAS A. GONDA, ESQ.
Cleveland, Ohio  44110        615 Superior Avenue, N.W.
                              Cleveland, Ohio  44113
                              For defendants-appellees
                              P.F. Holland, Holland & Assoc.
                              and Cindy Larosa:
                              PATRICK J. HOLLAND, ESQ.
                              21851 Center Ridge Road, Suite 410
                              Rocky River, Ohio  44116
                               - 2 -
PER CURIAM: 
     Appellant filed a  Civ.R. 60(B) motion  to vacate the  summary
judgment  in  appellees' favor,  on August  4,  1995.   The summary
judgment was  granted eight  months earlier,  on December  6, 1994.
The  trial  court denied  appellant's  motion to  vacate  without a
hearing.  Appellant appeals from the court's decision.
                                 I
     THE  TRIAL  JUDGE ABUSED  HIS  DISCRETION IN  REFUSING TO
     GRANT RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT.
     Appellant  fails  to  present  an  argument  to  support  this
assignment of  error.  He  merely reiterates the  points previously
raised in  his motion  and asserts  that the trial  court erred  in
denying his Civ.R. 60(B)  motion.  Giving appellant the  benefit of
the doubt, we can not find a basis upon which the trial court could
have granted appellant's motion.
          To prevail on a motion brought  under Civ. R. 60(B),
     the movant  must demonstrate that:  (1) the  party has  a
     meritorious  defense  or claim  to  present if  relief is
     granted; (2) the party is entitled to relief under one of
     the grounds stated  in Civ. R. 60(B)(1)  through (5); and
     (3)  the motion is  made within  a reasonable  time, and,
     where the grounds of relief are  Civ. R. 60(B)(1), (2) or
     (3), not more than one year  after the judgment, order or
     proceeding was entered or taken.
GTE Automatic Electric v. ARC Industries (1976), 47 Ohio St.2d 146,
paragraph two of the syllabus.
     Appellant's Civ.R. 60(B)  motion contained only  the realleged
claims of his complaint and brief in oppostion to appellees' motion
for summary judgment.  At no point did appellant raise  the spectre
of a meritorious  claim.   "Where movant for  relief from  judgment
                               - 3 -
fails to  assert operative facts  which would warrant  relief under
the civil  rule,  motion may  be denied  by trial  court without  a
hearing."   Justice  v. Lutheran  Social  Services (1992),  79 Ohio
App.3d 439, paragraph two of the syllabus.
     Appellant's first assignment of error is overruled.
                                 II
     THE TRIAL  JUDGE UNCONSTITUTIONAL  CONSTRUED AND  APPLIED
     CIVIL RULE 56 AND DENIED PLAINTIFF  DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN
     VIOLATION  OF OHIO  CONSTITUTION  AND  THE UNITED  STATES
     CONSTITUTION. [SIC]
     Appellant  asserts  that the  appellees  were not  entitled to
summary judgment  as a  matter of  law because  their attorney  had
perpetrated a fraud in the discovery process.  We decline to review
this assignment.  The argument raised by appellant should have been
brought  to this Court's  attention through a  timely filed appeal.
The  assignment of  error regarding  the propriety of  awarding the
appellees'  summary  judgment is  not properly  before us.   Relief
under Civ.R. 60(B) is  not available as  a substitute for a  timely
appeal.  Blasco v.  Mislik (1982),  69 Ohio  St.2d 684  and  Doe v.
Trumbull Cty. Children Services Bd. (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 128.
     Appellant's  second  assignment of  error  is overruled.   The
trial court's denial of his motion to vacate is affirmed.
                               - 4 -
     It is ordered that appellees  recover of appellant their costs
herein taxed. 
     The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
     It is ordered  that a special mandate issue out  of this Court
directing the Court  of Common  Pleas to carry  this judgment  into
execution.  
     A certified  copy of this  entry shall constitute  the mandate
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
                              _________________________________
                              SARA J. HARPER, PRESIDING JUDGE
                              _________________________________
                              ANN DYKE, JUDGE
                              _________________________________
                              JAMES D. SWEENEY, JUDGE
N.B. This  entry is  made pursuant  to the  third sentence  of Rule
22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.   This is an announcement
of decision (see Rule 26).  Ten (10) days from the date hereof this
document will be stamped to  indicate journalization, at which time
.