We review questions of law de novo. Tri Cty. Wholesale Distrib., Inc. v. Labatt USA Operating Co., LLC, 828 F.3d 421, 430 (6th Cir. 2016). Without providing any accompanying analysis or citation of authority, the district court held that to the extent Plaintiffs claim was based on Defendants’ denial of the Nunc Pro Tunc Order, Plaintiffs claim was not time-barred, as her suit was filed within six years of that denial. Thus, it seems that the district court either believed that the issuance of a nunc pro tunc order gave Plaintiff a new cause of action, or that it reset the statute of limitations. Either scenario misapprehends the effect of nunc pro tunc orders under Michigan law. As in other states, Michigan court orders issued nunc pro tunc do not retroactively modify substan 2001) (<HOLDING>); Central Laborers’ Pension, Welfare and
holding that even significant errors if clerical in nature may be corrected by the district court nunc pro tunc holding pro se petition cannot be held to same standard as pleadings drafted by attorneys holding nunc pro tunc orders cannot be used to rewrite history holding that a defendant proceeding pro se is bound by same rules as party represented by counsel and a court cannot allow pro se litigant lower standard of performance holding that class representatives cannot appear pro se