DARTANIAN PORTER V MARATHON PETROLEUM COMPANY LP (Per Curiam Opinion)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DARTANIAN PORTER, UNPUBLISHED November 17, 2016 Plaintiff-Appellant, v MARATHON PETROLEUM COMPANY, LP and HENRY FORD COMMUNITY COLLEGE, No. 328506 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 15-000209-CP Defendants-Appellees. Before: JANSEN, P.J., and MURPHY and RIORDAN, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals as of right the orders granting summary disposition in favor of defendant Marathon Petroleum Company, LP (Marathon), under MCR 2.116(C)(8) (failure to state a claim), and granting summary disposition in favor of defendant Henry Ford Community College (Henry Ford) under MCR 2.116(C)(7) (government immunity). We affirm. Plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he received information about a training program and scholarships for certification in process technology, as well as jobs that were available with Marathon. Henry Ford was one of the educational institutions involved in the partnership with Marathon to certify the individuals. According to plaintiff, he enrolled at Henry Ford in the spring of 2011 in order to complete the program, and by December 2011, he received the basic certificate in process technology. However, plaintiff alleged that his progression was delayed when a paid internship and a class he needed for completion of an associate degree were postponed. According to plaintiff, his attempts to find out when the internship and class would be offered were unsuccessful. He thereafter filed his complaint in the trial court and requested $350,000, which included $50,000 for each year he was eligible for a process technology clerk position and an additional $150,000. Plaintiff has failed to articulate a reasoned argument in his brief now before us. Instead, plaintiff simply asserts that the trial court violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and asks that the case be remanded for a jury trial. The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of Marathon under MCR 2.116(C)(8) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, and granted summary disposition in favor of Henry Ford under MCR 2.116(C)(7) on the basis of government immunity. Plaintiff’s brief is entirely devoid of any legal argument, and he fails to provide any explanation for why the trial court -1- erred by granting summary disposition in favor of defendants. “ ‘An appellant may not merely announce his position and leave it to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, nor may he give issues cursory treatment with little or no citation of supporting authority.’ ” Movie Mania Metro, Inc v GZ DVD’s, Inc, 306 Mich App 594, 605-606; 857 NW2d 677 (2014) (citation omitted). Accordingly, we deem the issues abandoned on appeal. Affirmed. /s/ Kathleen Jansen /s/ William B. Murphy /s/ Michael J. Riordan -2-