ERIC B DINKINS V JULIE PALMER

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ERIC B. DINKINS, UNPUBLISHED September 17, 2002 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 232987 Montcalm Circuit Court LC No. 01-000046-NO JULIE PALMER, SANDRA BURK, JOHN DAVIDS, KURT JONES, and KENNETH MCGEE,1 Defendants-Appellees. Before: Murphy, P.J., and Hood and Murray, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court’s order of dismissal. Plaintiff filed a multi-count complaint following his termination from employment as a teacher’s aide at the Carson City Correctional Facility. The trial court sua sponte dismissed the complaint following a review in accordance with the provisions of MCL 600.5501 et seq. We affirm. Plaintiff first alleges that the trial court erred in applying the provisions of MCL 600.5501 et seq., because his complaint was based on intentional state tort violations. We disagree. Our review of this issue is de novo. Meagher v Wayne State University, 222 Mich App 700, 719; 565 NW2d 401 (1997). The gravamen of a plaintiff’s action is determined by considering the entire claim, and a plaintiff may not avoid dismissal or immunity protections by artful pleading. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 135; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). Review of plaintiff’s complaint reveals that it is premised on prison conditions as defined by MCL 600.5531(a). Accordingly, the trial court properly analyzed the claim in accordance with MCL 600.5501 et seq. Plaintiff next alleges that the trial court erred by sua sponte entering a dismissal. We 1 In his reply brief, plaintiff asserts that the appropriate spelling is “McKee.” Because there is no information in the lower court record indicating the correct spelling, the caption has been prepared in accordance with the appellate docketing statement. -1- disagree. A showing of physical injury was required for plaintiff to maintain his claims for damages. MCL 600.5511(1).2 Affirmed. /s/ William B. Murphy /s/ Harold Hood /s/ Christopher M. Murray 2 Accordingly, we need not address plaintiff’s remaining challenges to the order of dismissal based on governmental immunity and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Furthermore, although not raised before and addressed by the trial court, the representation of the defendants by the attorney general was proper. MCL 691.1408(1). -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.