COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
 
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
 
                           No. 84702
 
 
LEROY HOWARD                  :        ORIGINAL ACTION
                              :
                              :        JOURNAL ENTRY
          Relator             :             AND
                              :           OPINION
    vs.                       :
                              :
CUYAHOGA COUNTY PROBATE COURT :
                              :
          Respondent          :
 
 
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:           AUGUST 30, 2004
 
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS:         WRIT OF PROCEDENDO
 
JUDGMENT:                         Dismissed.
                                  Motion No. 361114
 
 
 
APPEARANCES:
 
For Relator:                      LEROY HOWARD, pro se
                                  9510 Kinsman Road
                                  Cleveland, Ohio 44104
 
 
For Respondent:                   WILLIAM D. MASON
                                  Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                                  BY: CHARLES E. HANNAN, JR.
                                  Assistant County Prosecutor
                                  Justice Center - 9th Floor
                                  1200 Ontario Street
                                  Cleveland, Ohio 44113
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                -2-
 
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.:
 
     Leroy Howard has filed a complaint for a writ of procedendo
 
through which he seeks an order from this court which requires the
 
Cuyahoga County Probate Court to "award and adjudicate relief by
 
issueing (sic) forth an order for the court below to review the
 
enitirity (sic) of petitioner 's claims since there is nothing in
 
the record to suggest that said claims are fruadelent (sic) or
 
frivilously (sic) made and if the claims were well taken, then the
 
court below would have to make a judgement anew and different".
 
The Cuyahoga County Probate Court has filed a motion to dismiss
 
which we grant for the following reasons.
 
     Initially, we find that Howard's complaint for a writ of
 
procedendo is procedurally defective since it fails to contain a
 
sworn affidavit as mandated by Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a). The failure
 
of Howard to comply with the supporting affidavit requirement of
 
Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) warrants dismissal of the complaint for a
 
writ of procedendo.   State ex rel. Smith v. McMonagle (July 17,
 
1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70899; State ex rel. Wilson v. Calabrese
 
(Jan. 18, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70077.
 
     In addition, Howard's complaint for a writ of procedendo fails
 
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Civ.R.
 
12(B)(6). Procedendo is an extraordinary remedy issued by a court
 
of superior jurisdiction which orders an inferior court to proceed
 
to judgment.  State ex rel. Miley v. Parrott, 77 Ohio St.3d 64,
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                -3-
 
1996-Ohio-350, 671 N.E.2d 24; State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga
 
Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 72 Ohio St.3d 461, 1995-Ohio-26, 650
 
N.E.2d 899. In order for this court to issue a writ of procedendo,
 
Howard must establish that: (1) Howard possesses a clear legal
 
right which requires the Cuyahoga County Probate Court to proceed
 
to judgment in Cuyahoga County Probate Case No. 1999-EST-16852; (2)
 
the Cuyahoga County Probate Court possesses a clear legal duty to
 
proceed to judgment; and (3) there exists no other adequate remedy
 
in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel,
 
81 Ohio St.3d 325, 1998-Ohio-624, 691 N.E.2d 275; State ex rel.
 
Crandall, Pheils & Wisniewski v. DeCessna, 73 Ohio St.3d 180, 1995-
 
Ohio-98, 652 N.E.2d 742.
 
     Herein, Howard has failed to establish the first and second
 
prongs of the aforesaid three-part test. The Cuyahoga County
 
Probate Court has issued rulings with regard to every motion that
 
was filed by Howard in Cuyahoga County Probate Case No. 1999-EST-
 
16852. The Cuyahoga County Probate Court possesses no additional
 
duty to render any further rulings with regard to any motion as
 
previously filed in the underlying action. Walker v. Karp (March
 
19, 2002), Cuyahoga App. No. 80773. Finally, Howard has failed to
 
avail himself of an existing remedy at law vis-a-vis a direct
 
appeal to this court from any judgment as previously issued by the
 
Cuyahoga County Probate Court.   State ex rel. Hastings Mut. Ins.
 
Co. V. Merillat (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 152, 553 N.E.2d 646; State ex
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                               -4-
 
rel. Rhodes v. Van Brocklin (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 236, 522 N.E.2d
 
1088.
 
    Accordingly, we grant the motion to dismiss as filed by the
 
Cuyahoga County Probate Court. Costs to Howard. It is further
 
ordered that the Clerk of the Eighth District Court of Appeals
 
serve notice of this judgment upon all parties as required by
 
Civ.R. 58(B).
 
    Complaint dismissed.
 
 
 
 
                                      KENNETH A. ROCCO
                                          JUDGE
 
PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, P.J., CONCURS
 
ANTHONY O. CALABRESE, JR., J., CONCURS
 
 
 
.