Opinion
A21-1435
08-02-2022
Marcus Reynolds, Appellant, v. Covenire Care Nokomis, LLC, Respondent.
Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CV-20-12645
Considered and decided by Jesson, Presiding Judge; Wheelock, Judge; and Cleary, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
SARAH I. WHEELOCK JUDGE
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In June 2020, appellant Marcus Reynolds served a complaint against Covenire Care Nokomis LLC (Covenire) alleging that he was denied light work after a work injury and that he was unlawfully discharged soon after that denial.
2. Covenire moved for summary judgment in July 2021. Covenire argued that Reynolds did not prove his disability-discrimination claim, his failure-to-accommodate claim, or his retaliation claim. Reynolds did not respond and did not attend the hearing on the motion. At the hearing, Covenire added that Reynolds had failed to prosecute the case because he had not served any discovery requests, taken depositions, put in declarations or exhibits, or opposed Covenire's summary-judgment motion.
3. The district court granted summary judgment to Covenire, determining that Reynolds had failed to establish any issue of material fact to support his claims that Covenire discriminated against him based on a disability and unlawfully discharged him. The district court also determined that Reynolds had failed to prosecute his case because he did not file a response to Covenire's motion for summary judgment and did not appear at the hearing on the motion.
4. Summary judgment is appropriate where "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.01. When considering a motion for summary judgment, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolve all factual inferences and doubts against the moving party. Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., 898 N.W.2d 623, 628 (Minn. 2017). Summary judgment is not appropriate "when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented." Id. (quotation omitted). We review de novo whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court properly applied the law. Kenneh v. Homeward Bound, Inc., 944 N.W.2d 222, 228 (Minn. 2020).
5. We do not presume error on appeal; the burden rests on the "one who relies upon" the error to make the error appear affirmatively before there can be reversal. Midway Ctr. Assocs. v. Midway Ctr., Inc., 237 N.W.2d 76, 78 (Minn. 1975) (quotation omitted). Inadequately briefed issues are not properly before an appellate court. Melina v. Chaplin, 327 N.W.2d 19, 20 (Minn. 1982). We require the same duties of a party who is self-represented (pro se) as one represented by an attorney, although a pro se party may be accorded some leeway. Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 1.04; see Francis v. State, 781 N.W.2d 892, 896 (Minn. 2010) (stating that a party who appears pro se "is held to the standard of an attorney in presenting his appeal"). Although we may disregard some defects in a brief, the appellant is not relieved of "the necessity of providing an adequate record and preserving it in a way that will permit review." Thorp Loan & Thrift Co. v. Morse, 451 N.W.2d 361, 363 (Minn.App. 1990), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 13, 1990).
6. On appeal, Reynolds's brief consists of a single paragraph in which he argues that he requested light duty following a back injury and that Covenire said in a letter that it was "not in their practice to offer light duty." He then concludes that the state agencies did not "properly investigate [his] Civil Rights Division complaint."
7. Reynolds's brief on appeal is inadequate. First, Reynolds fails to make an argument addressing the district court's determination that he did not show that there are genuine issues of material fact supporting his claims against Covenire. Second, Reynolds does not contest the district court's determination that he failed to prosecute his case. Finally, Reynolds's conclusion that the state agencies did not properly investigate his complaint was not an issue before the district court and does not support a determination that the district court erred.
8. Because Reynolds's brief is inadequate and does not meet his burden on appeal to demonstrate error, we affirm.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's summary judgment dismissing Reynolds's complaint is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.