PETER SHEFMAN V MICHIGAN FARM BUREAU INC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PETER SHEFMAN,
UNPUBLISHED
December 21, 2010
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 288587
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 06-615743-CK
MICHIGAN FARM BUREAU,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
KURT SIMON,
Defendant.
Before: MARKEY, P.J., and WILDER and STEPHENS, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court’s October 7, 2008, order of dismissal. We
affirm. This appeal has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Although plaintiff’s stated issues refer to his constitutional rights to due process and
equal protection and to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 USC 12101 et seq., the argument
section of his brief does not develop any argument that concerns his statutory or constitutional
rights. Accordingly, plaintiff has abandoned those grounds for relief. An appellant must do
more than simply announce a position or assert an error. He must discuss the basis of the trial
court’s ruling, Derderian v Genesys Health Care Sys, 263 Mich App 364, 381; 689 NW2d 145
(2004), and “adequately prime the pump” for the appellate well to flow by explaining the basis
of his argument, supported with citations to relevant authorities, Goolsby v Detroit, 419 Mich
651, 655 n 1; 358 NW2d 856 (1984).
The crux of plaintiff’s argument on appeal concerns the apparent absence of a signed
August 28, 2008, order of dismissal. There is no dispute that at a status conference on that date,
the trial court stated that it was dismissing plaintiff’s case without prejudice for his failure to
attend the status conference. However, it is unclear from the record whether the court entered an
order on that date. Plaintiff does not address whether dismissal was improper or unwarranted,
but instead fixates on the fact that the lower court’s docket entries do not show that an order was
-1-
entered on August 28, 2008, and that defendant is unable to produce any such order. However,
plaintiff does not explain why the absence of an order entered on that date is crucial or
prejudicial.
We conclude that the alleged error is harmless. Assuming arguendo that, prior to its
October 7, 2008 order, the trial court did not enter an order of dismissal to memorialize its
August 28, 2008, ruling, plaintiff could have raised that issue below and the trial court could
have corrected the omission by entering an order nunc pro tunc. See Sleboede v Sleboede, 384
Mich 555, 558-559; 184 NW2d 923 (1971) (the function of a nunc pro tunc order “is to supply
an omission in the record of action previously taken by the court but not properly recorded[.]”)
The failure to enter the order is not grounds for relief unless refusal to grant relief is inconsistent
with substantial justice. MCR 2.613(A). Plaintiff does not provide any basis for this Court to
conclude that plaintiff was prejudiced by the alleged irregularity or delay in entering the order
dismissing this case. Accordingly, our refusal to disturb the trial court’s October 7, 2008, order
of dismissal is not inconsistent with substantial justice.
Affirmed. Defendant, being the prevailing party, may tax costs pursuant to MCR 7.219.
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens
-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.
