Background
Michaela Carter sued Prestige Home Furnishings in Kettering Municipal Court, alleging that the company refused to honor an extended warranty for her Samsung washing machine. She sought a $1,500 refund, costs, and interest. The case was moved from small claims to the regular docket and then returned to small claims after Prestige did not file a responsive pleading as ordered.
Carter did not appear for the scheduled March 3, 2026 trial. Prestige appeared through counsel and sought dismissal with prejudice. A magistrate recommended dismissal, and Carter timely objected seven days later, stating without sworn support or documentation that a PTSD episode caused her absence. The municipal court overruled the objection after an independent review and dismissed the action with prejudice.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion under Civ.R. 41(B)(1) by dismissing the case with prejudice after Carter failed to attend trial. Although dismissal is a harsh sanction, Carter did not contact the court about her absence and supplied only an unsworn assertion of a PTSD episode, without an affidavit or documentation verifying either a diagnosis or an episode on the trial date.
The appellate court declined to consider health-related screenshots attached for the first time to Carter’s notice of appeal because they had not been before the trial court. It also held that the municipal court satisfied Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d) and due process by stating that it independently reviewed the filings and magistrate’s recommendation; the court was not required to specifically discuss Carter’s asserted medical excuse. Carter’s allegations of bad faith by Prestige did not affect the dismissal analysis.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff’s failure to appear for trial can support dismissal with prejudice under Civ.R. 41(B)(1), reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- An objection to a magistrate’s recommended dismissal provides the notice and opportunity to explain required by Civ.R. 41(B).
- Unsupported statements about a medical condition may not establish a sufficient excuse for missing trial, and appellate courts generally will not consider materials absent from the trial-court record.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that even in a pro se small-claims case, a party who misses trial should promptly notify the court and support any claimed medical excuse with evidence submitted to the trial court. A later unsworn explanation may not prevent a dismissal with prejudice.
It also confirms that a trial court conducting an independent review of objections to a magistrate’s decision need not expressly address every point raised in the objection to satisfy Civ.R. 53 and due process.