COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            No. 76820
                                    ACCELERATED DOCKET
D.J.L. INC., DBA COUNTRY      :
  LAKES PARTY CENTER          :
                              :       JOURNAL ENTRY
          Plaintiff-appellant :
                              :           AND
     vs.                      :
                              :         OPINION
STACY CLARK, ET AL.           :
                              :
          Defendant-appellees :
                              :
                              :        JUNE 1, 2000
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT          :
 OF DECISION                  :
                              :
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS      :    Civil appeal from
                              :    Parma Municipal Court
                              :    Case No. 99 CVI 1562
                              :
JUDGMENT                      :    AFFIRMED
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION        :
APPEARANCES:
For plaintiff-appellant:           For defendant-appellees:
KENDRA J. JESKE                    STACY CLARK, pro se
NEAL M. JAMISON                    331 Treeworth Blvd.
Largent, Berry, Preston &          Broadview Heights, OH 44147
 Jamison
1 Berea Commons, Suite 216         BRIAN BARRY, pro se
Berea, OH 44017                    331 Treeworth Blvd.
                                   Broadview Heights, OH 44147
JOHN T. PATTON, P.J.:
     This cause came on to be heard upon the accelerated calendar
                               -2-
pursuant to App. R. 11.1 and Loc. R. 25, the records from the court
of common pleas, the briefs and oral argument of counsel.
     Plaintiff DJL, Inc., doing  business as Country Lakes  Party
Center, brought this breach of contract action against  defendant
Stacy Clark after she cancelled plans for a wedding reception to be
held at  the party  center.   The  contract between  the  parties
contained a liquidated damages clause which provided for a sliding
scale  of  damages depending  on  when  defendant  cancelled  the
scheduled event.  Based  on that clause, the party center  sought
damages of $3,015, in addition to a $1,150 non-refundable security
deposit which it retained. A magistrate heard the matter and found
the  liquidated damages  portion  of the  contract  unenforceable
because $1,150 is sufficient profit for not putting on the event.
(emphasis added).
     A procedural  quirk exists  that prevents  our reaching  the
merits. After the magistrate issued his decision, the party center
immediately appealed that decision.  We dismissed the appeal  for
want of final, appealable order because the municipal court had not
adopted  the  magistrate's   decision  as   required  by   Civ.R.
53(E)(3)(b). Upon remand, the party center filed a motion with the
court styled,  Motion to Adopt Magistrate's Decision.   The motion
asked  the court to  adopt the magistrate's  decision so that  an
appeal could be heard.  The court complied.
     Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(b) states,   [a] party  shall not assign  as
error on appeal  the court's adoption of  any finding of fact  or
conclusion of law unless the party has objected to that finding or
                               -3-
conclusion under this rule.    Hence, a party cannot complain  on
appeal about a magistrate's  decision unless he filed  objections
with the court.  Quill v. R.A. Investment Corp. (1997), 124  Ohio
App.3d 653, 664; Enyart v. Columbus Metro. Area Community  Action
Org. (1996), 115  Ohio App.  3d 348, 359.   The  failure to  file
objections is  not a jurisdictional  bar to appeal,  but it is  a
failure to exemplify error as required by App.R. 9.  See Proctor v.
Proctor(1988), 48 Ohio App. 3d 55, 58-59; East Cleveland v. Echols
(Dec. 2, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 74941, unreported.
     We realize the party center's motion asking the court to adopt
the magistrate's decision was intended solely to create a  final,
appealable order and we do not take it as an affirmative request to
adopt the factual  and legal conclusions stated in the  decision.
Nonetheless, a party taking issue with a magistrate's decision has
the duty to state specific objections and state with particularity
the grounds of the objection.   See Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(b). Because the
record  below  does   not  reveal  the  finding(s)  of  fact   or
conclusion(s) of law to which the party center took exception, we
cannot disturb the judge's adoption of the magistrate's decision.
The assigned error is overruled.
     Judgment affirmed.
                               -4-
     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
directi ng the Parma 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, J.
ANNE L. KILBANE, J.,    CONCUR.
                                          PRESIDING JUDGE
                                          JOHN T. PATTON
    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 court's announcement of decision by the
clerk  per App.R.  22(E).   See,  also S.Ct.Prac.R.  II,  Section
2(A)(1).
 
.