THEDFORD A ROWSER V WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSP
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
THEDFORD A. ROWSER,
UNPUBLISHED
December 18, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL, BARRY
M. GRANT, THOMAS J. McASKIN, ROBERT
L. MARTIN, DONNA THOMPSON, CATHOLIC
SOCIAL SERVICES, BARBARA CLEREBOUT,
and KAREN GULLBERG COOK,
No. 225134
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 99-015629-CZ
Defendant-Appellees,
and
OAKLAND CIRCUIT JUDGE FRED M.
MESTER,
Amicus Curiae.
Before: Meter, P.J., and Jansen and Gotham*, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff, acting in propria persona, appeals as of right the trial court’s order denying her
conjoined motions for new trial, disqualification of the court, joinder of parties, change of venue,
and alteration or amendment of judgments. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without
oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiff, acting in propria persona, filed suit in Oakland Circuit Court alleging that
defendants engaged in discrimination in violation of 42 USC 1983 and the Elliott-Larsen Civil
Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq. The case was assigned to Judge Mester. Defendants moved
for summary disposition based on various grounds. The trial court granted the motions and
dismissed the case.
Plaintiff filed a conjoined motion seeking a new trial, disqualification of the court,
joinder of parties, change of venue, and alteration or amendment judgments. She alleged that the
proceedings to that point had been tainted by irregularities, including the execution of forged
orders, and that Judge Mester should have voluntarily disqualified himself because he was
prejudiced against her. In addition, plaintiff sought to consolidate this matter with other cases in
which she was involved. The trial court denied the motion in its entirety.
-1-
Plaintiff’s entire argument focuses on the trial court’s denial of the motion for
disqualification. She presents no argument regarding the other aspects of the court’s rulings;
therefore, we deem those issues abandoned. Prince v MacDonald, 237 Mich App 186, 197; 602
NW2d 834 (1999).
A judge is disqualified when he cannot impartially hear a case. The situations that
warrant disqualification include, but are not limited to: when the judge is personally biased or
prejudiced for or against a party or an attorney; when the judge has personal knowledge of
disputed facts; when the judge has been consulted or employed as an attorney in the matter;
when the judge was a partner of a party, the attorney for a party, or a member of a law firm
representing a party within the last two years; when the judge knows that he or a relative has an
economic interest in the proceeding that is more than de minimus; or when the judge or a relative
is a party to the proceeding, is acting as an attorney in the proceeding, or is likely to be a material
witness in the proceeding. MCR 2.003(B). We review the factual findings supporting a ruling
on a motion for disqualification for an abuse of discretion and the application of the facts to the
law de novo. Cain v Dep’t of Corrections, 451 Mich 470, 503 n 8; 548 NW2d 210 (1996).
Plaintiff argues that the trial court was subject to disqualification because he was
personally prejudiced against her. MCR 2.003(B)(1). We disagree and affirm the trial court’s
decision in its entirety. Generally, a showing of actual prejudice is required to disqualify a
judge. A judge is presumed to be impartial, and a showing of partiality usually requires that the
prejudice be personal and have its origin in events or information from outside the judicial
proceeding. Cain, supra at 495-497. Plaintiff has pointed to no remarks or rulings by the court
that demonstrate that the court was prejudiced against her based on race or gender. The fact that
the court presided over a prior, unrelated proceeding in which plaintiff was involved does not
establish that the court was prejudiced against plaintiff. Impullitti v Impullitti, 163 Mich App
507, 514; 415 NW2d 261 (1987). No evidence showed that the court had any involvement
whatsoever in the actual investigation conducted of plaintiff’s unauthorized practice of law by
the State Bar or that he held any personal animus toward plaintiff as a result of those
proceedings. Finally, the fact that the court ruled in favor of defendants does not demonstrate
prejudice. Repeated rulings against a litigant do not establish prejudice, even if the rulings are
erroneous. Wayne County Prosecutor v Parole Bd, 210 Mich App 148, 155; 532 NW2d 899
(1995). Plaintiff has not established that the trial court’s rulings in favor of defendants were
erroneous. She has not overcome the presumption that the trial court was impartial. Cain, supra
at 495.
Affirmed.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Roy D. Gotham
-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.