Opinion ID: 2800044
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: ” Appellant’s Br. at 8, fn. 6, and at 37, fn. 11.

Text: -6- Case No. 14-1725, Briggs v. Univ. of Detroit-Mercy, et al. After Briggs’ appellate briefing was filed, Meisner was dismissed from this appeal pursuant to a stipulation on October 27, 2014. On the same day Gaither/UDM filed its appeal brief which addressed the district court’s May 7, 2014 order granting summary judgment to Meisner and its underlying findings with respect to Briggs’ defamation claims. Gaither/UDM’s inclusion of this argument appears prophylactic and ultimately unnecessary because (1) Briggs’ defamation arguments on appeal are directed only at Meisner, who was subsequently dismissed from the appeal; (2) Briggs does not argue that UDM was liable for Meisner’s allegedly defamatory statements; and (3) Briggs does not challenge the district court’s May 27, 2014 decision as to UDM’s liability for Meisner’s alleged defamation.3 Accordingly, we review only the district court’s May 27, 2014 order granting summary judgment to Gaither/UDM and limit our review, as requested by Briggs, to his Title VII retaliation claim. Briggs now argues that (1) he did not forfeit any argument against summary judgment of his Title VII retaliation claim, and (2) the district court’s analysis preceding its grant of summary judgment was inadequate. We consider each of his arguments in turn.