Doris Lavender v. UIC College of Dentistry, et al


Filed Nonprecedential Disposition PER CURIAM. The appeal is DISMISSED. Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge; Ann Claire Williams, Circuit Judge and Diane S. Sykes, Circuit Judge. [6819190-1] [6819190] [16-3388]

Download PDF
Case: 16-3388 Document: 12 Filed: 02/15/2017 Pages: 2 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 February 13, 2017* Decided February 15, 2017 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge No. 16-3388 DORIS QUEEN LAVENDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. v. No. 16 CV 1996 UIC COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. John W. Darrah, Judge. ORDER Doris Queen Lavender sued the UIC College of Dentistry and six dentists for violating her civil rights in fantastical ways, among them allegedly placing a miniature bomb in one of her teeth, electrocuting her “execution style,” and wiretapping her. When she applied to proceed in forma pauperis in the district court, the court dismissed We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because it would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). The defendants are not participating in this appeal. * Case: 16-3388 No. 16-3388 Document: 12 Filed: 02/15/2017 Pages: 2 Page 2 the lawsuit because her allegations were too speculative to state a claim on which relief could be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). On appeal Lavender repeats the same fantastical allegations but does not provide a reasoned basis for disturbing the district court’s conclusion that her allegations did not state a claim. She therefore has not complied with Rule 28(a)(8) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which requires that an appellate brief contain an argument and reasoning to support it, and which even pro se litigants must follow. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327–28 (1989); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545–46 (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?