Jeff Strong v. Illinois Department of Human S
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted November 13, 2008* Decided November 13, 2008 Before DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge No. 082568 JEFF STRONG, PlaintiffAppellant, v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, DefendantAppellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. No. 08017WDS William D. Stiehl, Judge.
O R D E R Jeff Strong sued the Illinois Department of Human Services for discriminating against him, apparently in relation to the way it adjudicated the status of a traumatic brain injury he suffered. He sought relief under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 974, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132. The district court screened the
The appellee was not served with process in the district court and is not participating in this appeal. After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2).
complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim because the State of Illinois is immune from suit under either the ADA or Rehabilitation Act. An appellate brief must contain legal argument, citation to legal authority, and a statement of the issues presented for review. FED. R. APP. P. 28(a). Strong's brief recounts his medical, educational, and vocational history, and narrates his interactions with the State, but he provides no legal argument or citation to supporting authority. Although we liberally construe pro se filings, "still we must be able to discern cogent arguments in any appellate brief, even from a pro se litigant." Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). DISMISSED.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?