HERBERT W G CLANTON V DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
HERBERT W. G. CLANTON,
UNPUBLISHED
October 27, 2009
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 284657
Ingham Circuit Court
LC No. 07-000400-CD
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Jansen, P.J., and Fort Hood and Gleicher, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from an order of the circuit court dismissing his complaint on
the ground that it was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. We agree and affirm.
As an initial matter, we note that plaintiff did not brief or address the merits of the trial
court’s ruling. When an appellant fails to challenge the basis of the ruling by the trial court, we
need not even consider granting the party the relief requested. Derderian v Genesys Health Care
Sys, 263 Mich App 364, 381; 689 NW2d 145 (2004). Nonetheless, we hold that the trial court
correctly dismissed the complaint. The question of whether the doctrine of res judicata will act
to bar a subsequent lawsuit presents a question of law subject to de novo review on appeal.
RDM Holdings, Ltd v Continental Plastics Co, 281 Mich App 678, 686; 762 NW2d 529 (2008).
The trial court has the inherent power to dismiss an action, and the decision to dismiss an action
is reviewed for a clear abuse of discretion. Maldonado v Ford Motor Co, 476 Mich 372, 388;
719 NW 2d 809 (2006). Dismissal for failing to follow the trial court’s orders is also reviewed
for an abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court selects an
outcome outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes. In re Temple Marital Trust,
278 Mich App 122, 128; 748 NW2d 265 (2008).
In Clanton v Dep’t of Transportation, unpublished decision of the Michigan Court of
Appeals, issued October 21, 2008 (Docket No. 277440) and Clanton v Armistead, unpublished
decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals, issued December 9, 2008 (Docket No. 279611), we
affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s lawsuit for failure to comply with the relevant
court rules. Unless the dismissal order provides otherwise, a dismissal with prejudice for
violating the court rules is an adjudication on the merits. Makowski v Towles, 195 Mich App
106, 107-108; 489 NW2d 133 (1992). The issues raised in the prior actions are identical to the
case now before the Court. Huggett v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 232 Mich App 188, 197-198;
590 NW2d 747 (1998). Plaintiff does not dispute the satisfaction of the privity requirement, and
-1-
this defendant was expressly named in a prior action. See Richards v Tibaldi, 272 Mich App
522, 531-532; 726 NW2d 770 (2006).
Further, in accordance with his prior actions, plaintiff failed to comply with the relevant
court rules where his allegations were not concise, clear, direct, and his statement of claim failed
to provide the requisite clarity to inform defendant of the nature of his claims. See MCR
2.111(A)(1), (B)(1). Similarly, plaintiff’s brief on appeal is confusing, often incoherent, and
lacking intelligible legal argument and relevant supporting authority. “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/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher
-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.
