COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            NO. 76325
CAROLE A. PUTKONEN            :
                              :    JOURNAL ENTRY
     PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE       :
                              :         AND
v.                            :
                              :       OPINION
HAROLD W. HENDERSON, ET AL.   :
                              :
     DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS    :
                              :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION:                  MAY 11, 2000
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:      Civil appeal from
                              Cleveland Municipal Court,
                              Case No. 97CF21771.
JUDGMENT:                     DISMISSED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-appellee:       BRIAN J. ESSI, Esq.
                              140 Public Square
                              Suite 512
                              Cleveland, Ohio 44114
For Defendants-appellants:    HAROLD W. HENDERSON, Esq., pro se
                              127 Public Square
                              Suite 3900
                              Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1216
                               -2-
SWEENEY, JAMES D., J.:
     Defendants-appellants Harold and Linda Henderson appeal from
the trial court's adoption of the Magistrate's decision.  For the
reasons adduced below,  we conclude that we lack jurisdiction  to
consider the notice of appeal and necessarily dismiss same for lack
of a final appealable order.
     A  review  of  the  record  on  appeal  indicates  that  the
Magistrate's decision at issue was never filed with the clerk  of
court.  Therefore, the order appealed from is not a final  order.
The following case law from this court is instructive:
          2. Objections cannot be taken from a referee's
          report  until the  report is  filed with  the
          clerk of  courts.  The  trial court does  not
          have authority  to act on  the merits of  the
          objections or to adopt, modify or reject  the
          report  until the  report is  filed with  the
          clerk for journalization and the parties have
          been given an opportunity to object.
          (Italicization added.)
Berry v. Berry (Cuyahoga, 1977), 50 Ohio App.2d 137, paragraph two
of the syllabus.
     Appeal dismissed.
                                 -3-
     It is ordered that appellee recover of appellants her costs herein
taxed.
     A certified  copy of  this  entry shall  constitute the  mandate
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Exceptions.
TERRENCE O'DONNELL, P.J., and
JAMES M. PORTER, J., CONCUR.
                                        _____________________________
                                             JAMES D. SWEENEY
                                                  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.  22.   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
.