JOHN COLLIE V MUSKEGON COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
JOHN COLLIE,
UNPUBLISHED
November 18, 2010
Plaintiff-Appellant,
V
No. 293873
Muskegon Circuit Court
LC No. 08-046290-NO
MUSKEGON COMMUNITY COLLEGE,
Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff-Appellee,
and
HAROLD COLEMAN, MICHELE BAKER, and
CRAIG DEITERS,
Defendants/Cross-DefendantsAppellees,
and
DIANA OSBORNE and JANIE BROOKS,
Defendants/Cross-Plaintiffs,
and
J.D. WILLIAMS,
Defendant.
Before: O’CONNELL, P.J., and BANDSTRA and MURRAY, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the circuit court’s orders granting summary disposition
to defendants. We affirm. This appeal has been decided without oral argument pursuant to
MCR 7.214(E).
-1-
Plaintiff filed suit alleging that he was assaulted at a golf course. Defendant Williams
was dismissed for failure of service; the remaining defendants were granted summary
disposition. On appeal, plaintiff presents much impassioned factual argument, with few record
citations, but virtually no legal authority. We need not address arguments that are not germane
to the issues set forth in the statement of questions presented. See MCR 7.212(C)(7); Meagher v
McNeely & Lincoln, Inc, 212 Mich App 154, 156; 536 NW2d 851 (1995).
Plaintiff’s first question is inquiry about the identity of one of the defense lawyers
participating below and a statement about paperwork relating to his involvement with the case.
Perhaps plaintiff means to suggest that this attorney should have been disqualified, but no
disqualification issue arose below, nor would any such issue bear on the propriety of the decision
to grant summary disposition. Plaintiff’s other question takes issue generally with the trial
court’s “closing statement” and suggests that the transcripts do not accurately reflect what went
on in court. But if that is what plaintiff means, he nonetheless specifies no such falsification, let
alone explains how the statements that were actually made in court, as opposed to what the
transcripts report, in fact show that defendants were not entitled to summary disposition.
A party’s mere assertion that the party’s rights were violated, unaccompanied by record
citations, cogent argument, or supporting authority, is insufficient to present an issue for this
Court’s consideration. See People v Jones (On Rehearing), 201 Mich App 449, 456-457; 506
NW2d 542 (1993). Because plaintiff has failed to give this Court any basis to disturb the
outcome below, we will not do so.
Affirmed.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
-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.
