HERBERT W G CLANTON V DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SERVICE

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS HERBERT W. G. CLANTON, UNPUBLISHED December 9, 2008 Plaintiff-Appellant, v DENNIS ARMISTEAD, JOHN BARAK, CURTIS BLEECH, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SERVICE, JOHN FRIEND, MICHAEL GAILEY, LEON HANK, F. THOMAS LEWAND, SHERRY L. MCMILLAN, SUSAN GRIMES MUNSELL, BRENDA O’BRIEN, OFFICE OF TECHNICAL COMPLAINTS, ERIC OUDSEMA, JAMES P. PITZ, CHERYL L. SCHMITTDIEL, NYE STANFORD, OFFICE OF STATE EMPLOYER, KIRK T. STEUDLE, CHERYAL STREYHORN, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, KIRSH TRUMAN, and DEPARTMENT OF/DIRECTOR TRANSPORTATION, No. 279611 Ingham Circuit Court LC No. 07-000399-CD Defendants-Appellees. Before: Saad, C.J., and Fitzgerald and Beckering, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Plaintiff appeals as of right from an order of the circuit court dismissing his complaint with prejudice.1 We affirm. An exercise of the trial court’s inherent power to dismiss an action may be disturbed only upon a finding that there has been a clear abuse of discretion. Maldonado v Ford Motor Co, 476 Mich 372, 388; 719 NW 2d 809 (2006). The trial court does not abuse its discretion when it 1 This appeal is related to Clanton v Dep’t of Transportation, unpublished decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals, issued October 21, 2008 (Docket No. 277440) (Clanton I), and the pending appeals in Docket Nos. 284657, 286495, and 287980. -1- chooses an outcome within the range of reasonable and principled outcomes. In re Temple Marital Trust, 278 Mich App 122, 128; 748 NW2d 265 (2008). Plaintiff’s petition for review filed below does not contain discernable specific arguments or reasons to support the allegation that the commission’s decision was in error. The Michigan Court Rules contain requirements to file a lawsuit. MCR 2.111(A)(1) and (B)(1) state “each allegation of a pleading must be clear, concise, and direct,” and that the pleading must contain, “[a] statement of the facts, without repetition, on which the pleader relies in stating the cause of action, with the specific allegations necessary reasonably to inform the adverse party of the nature of the claims the adverse party is called on to defend.” Plaintiff’s claims are broad generalizations of mistreatment that are not expanded upon or supported by fact or law. The facts that plaintiff does include are repetitive, vague, and disorganized and do not inform defendant of the nature of his claims. See MCR 7.104(C); MCL 24.303. We see no error in the circuit court’s handling of this matter. Similarly, plaintiff’s brief on appeal is disorganized and often unintelligible. “A party may not merely announce a position and leave it to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for the claim.” Nat’l Waterworks, Inc v Int’l Fidelity & Surety, Ltd, 275 Mich App 256, 265; 739 NW2d 121 (2007). Affirmed. /s/ Henry William Saad /s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald /s/ Jane M. Beckering -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.