Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

ALFRED FARHAT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

UNPUBLISHED October 25, 2011

No. 297123 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 08-114238-CZ

Before: WILDER, P.J., and CAVANAGH and DONOFRIO, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Plaintiff, proceeding in propria persona, appeals as of right from a circuit court order granting defendant's motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). We affirm. An appellant is obliged to announce a position or assert an error, discuss the basis of the trial court's ruling, Derderian v Genesys Health Care Sys, 263 Mich App 364, 381; 689 NW2d 145 (2004), and "adequately prime the pump" for the appellate well to flow by explaining the basis of his arguments, supported with citations to relevant authorities, Goolsby v Detroit, 419 Mich 651, 655 n 1; 358 NW2d 856 (1984). Plaintiff's brief does not identify any cognizable appellate issue. The recitation of facts concerns a matter that was not the basis for his argument in response to defendant's motion for summary disposition. The deficiencies in plaintiff's brief are so extreme as to require this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for any claim, to unravel and elaborate his arguments, and to search for authority to sustain or reject his position. This is an endeavor beyond the proper function of an appellate court. See Mitcham v Detroit, 355 Mich 182, 203; 94 NW2d 388 (1959). Accordingly, plaintiff is not entitled to relief. Affirmed. /s/ Kurtis T. Wilder /s/ Mark J. Cavanagh /s/ Pat M. Donofrio

-1-



Download ALFRED FARHAT V STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO.pdf

Michigan Law