
    The State ex rel. Booher, Appellant, v. Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc. et al., Appellees.
    [Cite as State ex rel. Booher v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 52.]
    (No. 98-1503
    Submitted January 26, 2000
    Decided February 23, 2000.)
    
      
      Sharon E. Deal, for appellant.
    
      Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., and Robert A. Minor, for appellee Honda of America Mfg., Inc.
    
      Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Michael A. Vanderhorst, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio.
   Per Curiam.

Claimant’s arguments before us derive directly from the conclusions of law contained in the magistrate’s decision. Claimant, however, did not timely object to those conclusions as Civ.R. 53(E)(3) requires. Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(b) prohibits a party from “assigning] 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 conclusion under this rule.”

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.  