COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 72552 MARVIN JOHNSON Plaintiff-appellant JOURNAL ENTRY vs. AND BERNARD GROUP, ET AL. OPINION Defendants-appellees DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: MAY 28, 1998 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Civil appeal from Common Pleas Court Case No. CV-311765 JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellant: For defendants-appellees: MARVIN JOHNSON, pro se WILLIAM A. PAYNE, ESQ. 4276 East 163rd Street PAYNE PAYNE & COOK Cleveland, Ohio 44128 1535 Leader Building 526 Superior Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1401 LISA M. GALE, ESQ. Assistant Prosecutor City of Shaker Heights 3400 Lee Road Shaker Heights, Ohio 44120 RON RAWLINS, ESQ. 1850 Midland Building 101 Prospect Avenue, West Cleveland, Ohio 44115 -2- KARPINSKI, P.J.: Plaintiff-appellant, Marvin Johnson, appeals pro se from the dismissal by the common pleas court of his claims arising out of a residential landlord-tenant dispute. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in its entirety. Johnson filed a pro se complaint for retaliatory eviction & discrimination against his landlord, The Bernard Group, his former landlord, Monroe Realty, and the Mayor, Housing Department and Municipal Court of the City of Shaker Heights (collectively, Shaker Heights ). Johnson alleged the landlords evicted him for complaining about alleged housing violations in prior litigation and discriminated against him based on race. Johnson alleged that Shaker Heights improperly failed to enforce housing laws. He had previously been evicted from the premises in a prior Shaker Heights Municipal Court proceeding but did not appeal from that judgment. Shaker Heights filed a motion to dismiss Johnson's complaint arguing that he failed to state a claim for relief and that any claims were barred by principles of governmental immunity. The Bernard Group filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment arguing that the claims asserted in this case had already been adjudicated against Johnson in the prior municipal court proceeding and were barred by the statute of limitations. Monroe Realty ultimately filed a similar motion to dismiss or for summary judgment and also argued that it was no longer the landlord when defendant was evicted. Johnson filed his own motion for summary judgment, which the defendants opposed. -3- In a three-page written opinion, the trial court denied Johnson's motion for summary judgment and granted both Shaker Heights' motion to dismiss and The Bernard Group's motion. The trial court thereafter granted Monroe Realty's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. Johnson pro se timely appeals purporting to raise eleven separate assignments of error, exclusive of numerous subparts. The brief contains fifty-two numbered paragraphs in its statement of facts, two pages of general argument, and a one-paragraph conclusion. None of the assignments is separately briefed or argued as required by App. R. 16. Pro se litigants are bound by the same rules as litigants represented by counsel. Delaney v. Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority(July 7, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 65714, unreported at p. 3 (citing Meyers v. First Nat'l Bank of Cincinnati (1981), 3 Ohio App.3d 209, 201). Appellate courts may disregard assignments of error for failure to comply with these rules. North Coast Cookies, Inc. v. Sweet Temptations, Inc. (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 342. This is particularly true when, as in this case, the litigant has prior experience filing appeals. See Johnson v. Monroe Realty (May 25, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 67964, unreported. Nevertheless, we briefly comment on Johnson's arguments, which lack substantive merit. Shaker Heights Johnson contends that the City of Shaker Heights, through various departments, and the Shaker Heights Municipal Court and a -4- judge have failed to properly enforce the housing code. This argument reiterates similar arguments made in his prior appeal. Johnson v. Monroe Realty, supra (assignments of error four and five). The trial court properly found that various municipal divisions could not be sued in their own right. City of Cuyahoga Falls v. Robart (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 1; Lindow v. North Royalton (1995), 104 Ohio App.3d 152. The Shaker Heights Municipal Court and judge are absolutely immune from civil liability for judicial decisions made within their jurisdiction as in this case. Willitzer v. McCloud (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 447, 449. Finally, plaintiff's complaint reveals that the City of Shaker Heights and its mayor are immune from his claims in this case under the political subdivision tort liability act. R.C. Chapter 2744. Monroe Realty and the Bernard Group Johnson has likewise failed to show that the trial court erred by finding his claims in this case were previously adjudicated against him in the forcible entry and detainer case filed by The Bernard Group in Shaker Heights Municipal Court. The Bernard Group v. Marvin and Brenda Johnson, Case No. 95-CVG-06085. The record reveals that Johnson raised these precise matters as counterclaims in the action to evict him. The municipal court granted The Bernard Group's motion to dismiss the counterclaims, and Johnson did not file any appeal. (Opinion at p.2.) Accordingly, the municipal court's dismissal is res judicata. Johnson's principal argument concerning Monroe Realty challenges the service of its motion, rather than the merits of its -5- argument. As a result of our review of the record, however, we conclude that Johnson has failed to show any error. The record reveals that the certificate of service on Monroe Realty's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment indicated that service was completed on March 3, 1997 by personal delivery to Johnson. The following day, Monroe Realty filed a notice of service indicating that the document was mailed to Johnson because he failed to appear at a scheduled pretrial. Johnson contends on appeal that he did not timely receive Monroe Realty's motion. However, because this claim requires considering material outside the record, it must be raised, if at all, in a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment. Johnson's complaint for wrongful eviction against Monroe Realty is also misplaced. The wrongful eviction claim fails to state a claim for relief, because he was evicted by the successor landlord, The Bernard Group; Monroe Realty did not evict him. His claim of racial discrimination relates to Monroe Realty's failure to make repairs to his apartment. However, the record shows that these claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.Ohio Civil Rights Comm. v. Oancea (Lucas C.P. 1994), 74 Ohio Misc.2d 75. Johnson's complaint in this case, filed July 12, 1996, complains about discriminatory treatment concerning repairs to his apartment dating back to 1987. Documentary evidence submitted by him reveals the last complaint concerning repairs to his own apartment was made on March 26, 1994. This lapse of more than two -6- years between the filing of this case on July 12, 1996 and the last alleged discriminatory treatment by Monroe Realty concerning his apartment repairs on March 26, 1994, exceeds the possible maximum two-year time period for filing such claims. Id. at 80.1 Accordingly, Johnson's eleven assignments of error are overruled. Judgment affirmed. 1 Because the claims of racial discrimination are barred by the statute of limitations, we do not address whether they are also barred by res judicata for failure to assert them in prior litigation between the parties. See Lable & Co. v. Flowers (1995), 104 Ohio App.3d 227, 234. We note, however, that the municipal court specifically found valid reasons to justify how the repairs were made. See Monroe Realty v. Brenda and Marvin Johnson, Case No. 94-CVG-02635. (Opinion at pp. 2-3.) Plaintiff's June 15, 1995 request for repairs to common areas of the building occurred after Monroe Realty had already sold the premises to The Bernard Group and were, in any event, non-discriminatory because the request involved areas common to all tenants. -7- It is ordered that appellee(s) 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 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. KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., and MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, J., CONCUR. DIANE KARPINSKI PRESIDING 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 .