Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 19, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Grace v. Jack Thistledown Racino

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 941
• Docket Number: 115574

• Judges: E.A. Gallagher

• Opinion

• Authorities (6)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Syllabus

Civ.R. 12(B)(6); motion to dismiss; without prejudice; not a final appealable order; lack of jurisdiction; appeal dismissed. Appellant appeals the trial court's granting of appellee's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss without prejudice. Because a dismissal of a complaint "without prejudice" is generally not a final appealable order, and this case does not fall under the exception to the rule as the appellant can restate his claims, this is not a final appealable order and we do not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Appeal dismissed.

Combined Opinion

[Cite as Grace v. Jack Thistledown Racino, 2026-Ohio-941.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

MYRON GRACE, :

Plaintiff-Appellant, :
No. 115574
v. :

JACK THISTLEDOWN RACINO, :

Defendant-Appellee. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: DISMISSED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 19, 2026

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CV-24-999335

Appearances:

Myron Grace, pro se.

Littler Mendelson, P.C., Ryan J. Morley and Shannon
Henry, for appellee.

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.:

Appellant Myron Grace (“Grace”), acting pro se, appeals the trial

court’s dismissal of his complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). For the reasons that

follow, we dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Facts and Procedural History

In his pro se complaint, Grace alleged that, on June 20, 2024, he was

at JACK Thistledown Racino (“JACK”), where free gifts were being given to JACK

members and JACK refused to give the gift to Grace despite him being a JACK

member. He then alleged that he spoke with two JACK employees about the

situation who then called security and he was escorted off the premises.

On June 21, 2024, Grace filed a complaint against JACK that was

captioned “Intentional infliction of harm, false allegations, threat of force,

defamation per se, emotional distress, and false reporting.” Although unclear from

his complaint, it appears Grace alleged JACK violated various criminal statutes and

committed defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Grace also

alleged in his complaint that the actions of JACK employees were racially motivated.

On August 21, 2024, JACK filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to

Civ.R. 12(B)(6).

On August 28, 2025 the trial court granted JACK’s motion to dismiss,

without prejudice, finding Grace’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief

could be granted. Grace appeals.

Grace’s appellate brief is confusing and difficult to decipher, alleging

various claims regarding discrimination, civil liability for criminal acts, violations of

the Ohio Consumer Sales Protection Act, etc. However, under his “Statement of

Errors” he alleges “[t]his dismissal was in fact error,” so we will assume his
assignment of error to be that the trial court erred in granting JACK’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6)

motion to dismiss and dismissing Grace’s complaint without prejudice.

Law and Analysis

This court only has jurisdiction to review final and appealable

orders. Ohio Const., art. IV, § 3(B)(2); R.C. 2505.03.

The determination as to whether a dismissal is with or without

prejudice rests within the discretion of the trial court. Sultaana v. Horseshoe

Casino, 2015-Ohio-4083, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.), citing Quonset Hut, Inc. v. Ford Motor

Co., 80 Ohio St.3d 46, 47 (1997).

“Ordinarily a dismissal of a complaint ‘without prejudice’ is not a

final, appealable order because it is not an adjudication on the merits and does not

prevent the party from refiling.” Martin v. Ohio Univ., 2023-Ohio-2511, ¶ 20 (4th

Dist.), citing State ex rel. DeDonno v. Mason, 2011-Ohio-1445, ¶ 2; see also Glavic

v. Weltman, 2024-Ohio-6029, ¶ 10 (8th Dist.) (“a trial court’s dismissal of a matter

without prejudice is not a final, appealable order”) quoting Lakeview Holding (OH),

L.L.C. v. Farmer, 2020-Ohio-3891, ¶ 18, (8th Dist.), citing Natl. City Commercial

Capital Corp. v. AAAA at Your Serv., Inc., 2007-Ohio-2942.

However, in some cases, the dismissal of a complaint, even when

dismissed “without prejudice,” can be considered an adjudication on the merits and

thereby a final appealable order ‘“if the plaintiff cannot plead the claims any

differently to state a claim for relief.”’ Bland v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc.,

2018-Ohio-1728, ¶ 7 (2d Dist.), quoting Hulsmeyer v. Hospice of Sw. Ohio, Inc.,
2013-Ohio-4147, ¶ 11 (1st Dist.); accord Randall v. JM Smucker Co., 2024-Ohio-

4725, ¶ 18 (6th Dist.).

Upon review of Grace’s complaint, we find the dismissal of his

complaint without prejudice to not be a final appealable order. While Grace’s claims

are very inartfully crafted, they could be pled differently to state claims for relief in

order to survive a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. As

such, because we find this is not a final appealable order, this court is without

jurisdiction to review the trial court’s journal entry. Glavic at ¶ 10.

Because we lack jurisdiction to consider this assignment of error, we

dismiss this appeal.

It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

---

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

MARY J. BOYLE, P.J., and
DEENA R. CALABRESE, J., CONCUR