Douglas Carl, et al v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP

Filing

Per Curiam OPINION filed : AFFIRMED, decision not for publication pursuant to local rule 206. Julia Smith Gibbons, Circuit Judge; Deborah L. Cook, Circuit Judge and Lee H. Rosenthal, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Texas.

Case: 11-2169

Document: 006111451899

Filed: 10/01/2012

Page: 1

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 12a1044n.06
No. 11-2169

FILED
Oct 01, 2012

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

DOUGLAS CARL; MARY CARL,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP,
Defendant-Appellee.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Before: GIBBONS and COOK, Circuit Judges; and ROSENTHAL, District Judge.*

PER CURIAM. The Carls appeal from the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal (and
denial of reconsideration) of their claims to void the foreclosure that deprived them of their
Michigan home. In the absence of reasoned argument setting forth specific legal grounds that would
support this court’s voiding the foreclosure, we affirm the district court’s judgment. The appellate
brief includes just 595 words in the argument section (including headings and articles) and only two
citations to Michigan statutes, without argument advocating a reading of those statutes. The Carls
make no effort to show how the district court erred. They supply only allegations and recitation of
their preferred appellate result. See United States v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 832, 845–46 (6th Cir. 2006)
(“[I]ssues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed

*The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, United States District Judge for the Southern District of
Texas, sitting by designation.

Case: 11-2169

Document: 006111451899

Filed: 10/01/2012

Page: 2

Nos. 11-3434/11-3497
United States v. Sarlog
argumentation, are deemed waived.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing United States v.
Elder, 90 F.3d 1110, 1118 (6th Cir. 1996))).

We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

-2-