COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 72186 SANFORD J. BERGER : : ACCELERATED DOCKET PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : : AND CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF : REVISION, ET AL : OPINION : DEFENDANTS-APPELLEE : PER CURIAM : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT SEPTEMBER 4, 1997 OF DECISION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CV-302354. JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: ________________________________ APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-appellant: Sanford J. Berger, Esq., Robert M. Fertel, Esq., Berger & Fertel, 1836 Euclid Ave., Room 305, Cleveland, Ohio, 44115-2234. For Cleveland Board of Education: Timothy J. Armstrong, Esq., Victor V. Anselmo, Esq., Armstrong, Mitchell, Damiani & Zaccagnini, 1725 Midland Building, 101 Prospect Avenue, West, Cleveland, Ohio, 44115-1091. For County Board of Revision: Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, Saundra Curtis-Patrick, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Courts Tower - Eighth Floor, 1200 Ontario Street, Cleveland, Ohio, 44113. 2 SWEENEY, JAMES D., C.J.: An accelerated appeal is authorized pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.App.R. 25. The purpose of an accelerated docket is to allow an appellate court to render a brief and conclusory decision. Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn. (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d 158. Plaintiff-appellant Sanford Berger appeals from the trial court's decision granting the motion to dismiss of defendant- appellee Cleveland Board of Education. This administrative appeal, filed pursuant to R.C. 5717.05, was originally filed against the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision as well, but it is not participating in this appeal. The appellant sets forth the following assignment of error: IT WAS ERROR FOR THE TRIAL COURT, BY ITS 2/11/97 JUDGMENT, TO HAVE GRANTED THE APPELLEE BOARD OF EDUCATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS. The appellant asserts that the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss because: 1) after the original filing of the case he voluntarily dismissed the action pursuant to Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a); 2) this dismissal was otherwise than on the merits so that, pursuant to R.C. 2305.19, the savings statute, it was permissible to refile the case within one year; and that 3) if the savings statute does not apply, then he was denied his constitutional right to have access to the court for a redress of grievances. The appellant's assertions are mistaken. It can be gleaned from the record that the appellant originally filed his administrative appeal before the Cuyahoga 3 County Court of Common Pleas and at some point he entered a voluntarily dismissal without prejudice. The Supreme Court, in Tower City Properties v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. Of Revision (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 67, at page 70, held that: Thus, Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a) alters the basic statutory design set forth in the statutes regarding tax valuations, and it is clearly `inapplicable' to appeals under R.C. 5717.05. While it is true that the underlying facts of Tower City, supra, are somewhat different, this court may not disregard a clear mandate of the Ohio Supreme Court. Given the Supreme Court's determination that an appeal from a decision by the Board of Revision may not be voluntarily dismissed, it is clear that the savings statute is inapplicable. It is equally clear that the appellant has not been denied his constitutional right to have access to the court for a redress of grievances as it was he who chose to dismiss the appeal and forego his legal remedy. The appellant's assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. 4 It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its 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 Common Pleas 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 D. SWEENEY, C.J. ______________________________ DAVID T. MATIA, J. ______________________________ LEO M. SPELLACY, J. N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 25(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 .