COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            No. 72564
CHARLES COLEMAN                        ACCELERATED DOCKET
                                          JOURNAL ENTRY
                                               AND
                                             OPINION
                                           PER CURIAM
          Plaintiff-appellant
     vs.
COMMERCIAL ROOFING CO., ET AL.
          Defendant-appellees
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT                    OCTOBER 30, 1997
 OF DECISION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS             Civil appeal from
                                     Bedford Municipal Court
                                     Case No. 96 CVI-03633
JUDGMENT                             Affirmed
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION
APPEARANCES:
For plaintiff-appellant:        For defendant-appellees:
RUSSELL A. MOORHEAD, ESQ.       MILLER STERKO
848 Rockefeller Bldg.           3180 West 120th Street
Cleveland, OH 44113             Rocky River, OH 44126
                              - 2 -
PER CURIAM:
     This  cause came  to be  heard on  the accelerated  calendar
pursuant to App. R. 11.1 and Loc. R. 25, the records from the court
of common pleas and the briefs.  Plaintiff-landlord Charles Coleman
appeals  from  a  small claims  judgment  rendered  in  favor  of
defendant-roofer Miller Sterko.   Plaintiff  brought this  action
seeking damages for defendant's breach of warranties related to a
roof repair job.  He complains (1) the trial court failed to issue
findings of  fact and  conclusions of  law, (2)  the judgment  is
against the manifest weight of the evidence, and (3) the municipal
court erred  by upholding a  contract made  by an  unincorporated
corporation.
     The recent amendments to Civ.R. 53(E) provide that a  magis-
trate has no duty to prepare findings of fact and conclusions  of
law unless a party requests them, the findings are required by law
or by order of reference.  See Civ.R. 53(E)(2).  Absent a request
for findings of fact and conclusions of law, the magistrate  need
only prepare  a decision.   A request  for findings  of fact  and
conclusions  of law should  be  unambiguously  addressed  to  the
court. See L.T.M. Builders v. Jefferson (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 91,
95.  While plaintiff proceeded pro se in the municipal court, the
civil rules still require a party to clearly alert the court to the
relief that party seeks.   Id.
     The only request for findings of fact and conclusions of law
appears in what may be characterized as plaintiff's objections to
the magistrate's report.  Plaintiff stated,  If [the magistrate's]
                              - 3 -
decision had been made during my court hearing, I would have been
given an explanation regarding her for the defendant (Mr.  Stergo
[sic]). Because plaintiff did not submit a clear and unambiguous
request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, the magistrate
had no independent duty to  issue them.  The first assignment  of
error is overruled.
     The second assignment  of error is likewise overruled.   Any
objection to a finding of fact  must be supported by a transcript
of all the evidence submitted to the magistrate relevant to  that
fact or  an affidavit  of that evidence  if a  transcript is  not
available.   See Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(b).  Plaintiff offered neither a
transcript nor an affidavit of the evidence to the municipal court
(a transcript  was prepared for  this appeal).   He did submit  a
summary of the testimony before the magistrate, but that summary is
not in a form proscribed by the clear terms of Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(b)
and, in any event, is obviously incomplete because it omits a large
portion of defendant's testimony.  Plaintiff's  failure to submit
either a transcript of the evidence or an affidavit summarizing the
evidence  prevented the  municipal  court  from  considering  his
argument that the magistrate's decision had been against the weight
of the evidence.
     The third assignment of  error complains that the  municipal
court should  not have upheld  the contract  between the  parties
because defendant's company, Commercial Roofing, is not registered
with the secretary of  state's office.  Plaintiff claims that  no
valid  contract arose  between  the parties  because  defendant's
                              - 4 -
misrepresentation of  the  status of  his company  precluded  the
parties from having a meeting of the minds.
     As in  the  first assignment  of  error, plaintiff  did  not
specifically raise  this  as  an objection  to  the  magistrate's
decision, so he cannot raise it as an assignment of error in this
court.  See Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(b).  Likewise, plaintiff did not make
any claims that defendant's actions constituted an unfair consumer
sales practice.   Therefore, we overrule the third assignment  of
error.
     Judgment affirmed.
                              - 5 -
     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 Bedford 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.
                              PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, PRESIDING JUDGE
.