Plaintiffs-Appellants Jesse Sembly and Tyese Graham (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the dismissal of their action arising from the foreclosure on their home. In their brief, Plaintiffs make no effort to address the Rule 9(b), 12(b)(6), and other deficiencies identified by the district court as grounds for dismissal. Nor do they set forth a rationale supporting their view that the district court erred. Instead, they argue for standing to challenge the foreclosure sale, even though the district court decided the standing issue in their favor. They also perfunctorily raise issues related to promissory estoppel, preemption, and Michigan’s statute of frauds. Because Plaintiffs have not adequately addressed in their brief on appeal the district court’s reasons for dismissing their complaint, we AFFIRM.