Mayes v. Rogue Valley Family Fun Center

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: June 3, 2026
• Docket: A186270
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

No. 500 June 3, 2026 321

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

Michael L. MAYES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROGUE VALLEY FAMILY FUN CENTER, LP, Defendant-Respondent. Jackson County Circuit Court 23CV22672; A186270

Timothy Barnack, Judge. Submitted May 12, 2026. Michael L. Mayes filed the briefs pro se. James L. Hiller and Hitt Hiller Monfils Williams, LLP, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Joyce, Judge, and Hellman, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. 322 Mayes v. Rogue Valley Family Fun Center

PER CURIAM In this civil action, plaintiff (appearing pro se as he did in the trial court) appeals a general judgment dismiss- ing his claims against defendant. We understand plaintiff to assign as error the trial court’s grant of summary judg- ment to defendant along with a variety of other rulings. Having considered the briefing and the pertinent parts of the record identified by the parties, we are unper- suaded that the trial court committed reversible error in granting summary judgment on the merits to defendant and do not otherwise find error in any of the other respects identified by plaintiff. In reaching that conclusion, we note that we have limited our review to claims of error that are properly presented in the opening brief. It is an appellant’s duty to identify the specific ruling(s) challenged on appeal, show us that the claims of error were adequately preserved in the trial court, and provide a cogent argument that con- forms to the applicable standard of review and is supported by legal authority and citations to the appellate record.1 Although we recognize the challenges inherent in represent- ing oneself pro se in an appellate court and may disregard technical deficiencies up to a point, we cannot step out of our role as neutral arbiter to “make or develop a party’s argu- ment.” Beall Transport Equipment Co. v. Southern Pacific, 186 Or App 696, 700 n 2, 64 P3d 1193, adh’d to as clarified on recons, 187 Or App 472, 68 P3d 259 (2003); see also Briggs v. Lamvik, 242 Or App 132, 142 n 9, 255 P3d 518 (2011) (stat- ing similar). With that limitation in mind, we have considered the arguments raised in plaintiff’s briefs and we are unper- suaded that the trial court erred when it granted the motion for summary judgment on the merits or in any other respect. Affirmed.

1 See, e.g., ORAP 5.45(3) (“Each assignment of error must identify precisely the legal, procedural, factual, or other ruling that is being challenged.”); ORAP 5.45(4)(a) (“The court may decline to consider any assignment of error that requires the court to search the record to find the error or to determine if the error properly was raised and preserved.”); ORAP 5.45(5) (standard-of-review requirements).