COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT 
                        COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 
                             NO. 70960
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION,     :  ACCELERATED DOCKET
                                   :                    
                                   :    JOURNAL ENTRY
          Plaintiff-Appellee       :                  
                                   :        AND
v.                                 :             
                                   :      OPINION
ELISE R. FRANCE, SR.,              :               
                                   :     PER CURIAM
                                   :                
          Defendant-Appellant      :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT 
OF DECISION:                       JANUARY 16, 1997  
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:           Civil appeal from
                                   Cleveland Municipal Court      
Case No. 95-CVF-0006189
JUDGMENT:                          AFFIRMED.                 
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:                                         
APPEARANCES:  
For plaintiff-appellee:            Leonard S. Greenwald 
                                   1617 The Superior Building
                                   815 Superior Avenue, N.E.   
                                   Cleveland, Ohio  44114
For defendant-appellant:           Elise R. France, Sr., Pro Se
                                   7180 Woodland Avenue
                                   Chagrin Falls, Ohio  44023
                                -2-
PER CURIAM:
     Essentially,  appellant's  assignments  of  error  attack  the
report  of  the magistrate  and its  adoption  by the  trial court.
Pursuant to Civ.R. 53(E)(4)(b), the trial court may "adopt, reject,
or modify the magistrate's decision."  We note that the record does
not contain  a transcript of the proceedings before the magistrate.
We therefore presume  regularity in the  findings of fact since  we
are unable to review  either the witness testimony or  the exhibits
which  might  have been  admitted.   Jackson  v. Jackson  (Dec. 16,
1993), Cuyahoga  App. No.  64265, unreported.   Further,  appellant
failed to  submit any evidence  to the  trial court  from which  it
could render a  decision independent of the  magistrate's findings.
Accordingly, our standard of review is  controlled by State ex rel.
Duncan v. Chippewa Twp. Trustees (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 728, wherein
the Ohio Supreme Court stated, at 730:
     When a  party objecting  to a  [magistrate's] report  has
     failed  to provide the trial court  with the evidence and
     documents  by  which  the  court  could  make  a  finding
     independent  of  the  report,  appellate  review  of  the
     court's findings is  limited to  whether the trial  court
     abused  its  discretion  in adopting  the  [magistrate's]
     report * * *.
     The abuse of discretion standard  "involves more than an error
of law or  judgment; it implies that the trial  court's attitude is
unreasonable,  arbitrary,   or  unconscionable."     Blakemore   v.
Blakemore (1983),  5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219.   Based on the record, we
conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it 
                                -3-
adopted  the  findings  of  the  magistrate  and  entered  judgment
accordingly.   Consequently, we overrule appellant's assignments of
error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
                                -4-
     It is  ordered that appellee 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 Cleveland Municipal Court 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.   
                              JAMES M. PORTER, PRESIDING JUDGE
                              ANN DYKE, JUDGE                 
                              JOSEPH J. NAHRA, JUDGE          
N.B.   This entry is an announcement of  the court's decision.  See
App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and  26(A); Loc.App.R. 27.  This  decision will
be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the  court
pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless  a motion for reconsideration  with
supporting brief, per App.R.  26(A), is filed within ten  (10) days
of the announcement  of the court's decision.  The  time period for
review  by the Supreme  Court of Ohio  shall begin to  run upon the
journalization  of  this court's  announcement  of decision  by the
.