Douglas CARL; Mary Carl, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, Defendant-Appellee, 479 F. App'x 732

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) (“[IJssues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed 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.