NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 12a1044n.06
No. 11-2169 FILED
Oct 01, 2012
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
DOUGLAS CARL; MARY CARL, )
)
Plaintiffs-Appellants, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
) EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, )
)
Defendant-Appellee. )
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.
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-