argument with factual allegations contrary to the findings of the district court. The district court’s unchallenged factual findings, including findings as to proximate cause, see Meek v. Dep’t of Transp., 240 Mich.App. 105, 610 N.W.2d 250, 256 (Mich.App.2000), are binding on this Court. See Osborn v. Sinclair Refining Co., 286 F.2d 832, 834 (4th Cir.1960) (noting that where factual findings are not contested on appeal, the reviewing court is concerned only with the legal conclusions to be drawn from them). Because Plaintiffs assertion that the district court applied an incorrect “sole cause” causation standard has no foundation in the record, we reject Plaintiffs argument as to causation of injury. See Grover Hill Grain Co. v. Baughman-Oster, Inc., 728 F.2d 784, 793 (6th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). The district court having carefully analyzed
holding that pleadings under the rico act are to be liberally construed holding that while pro se complaints are liberally construed issues not raised in the district court are deemed waived holding that a district courts findings under rule 52a are to be liberally construed in support of the district courts judgment holding that pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed holding that courts should liberally construe the requirements of rule 3