Case ID: f-appx_186/html/0685-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Vail WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Keith ALLEN, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 06-1508.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    Submitted July 14, 2006.
    
    Decided July 18, 2006.
    Vail White, Chicago, IL, pro se.
    Martin K. Denis, Barlow, Kobata & Denis, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge, Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge, Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge.
    
      
       After an examination of 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).
    
   ORDER

Vail White brought suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., alleging that Keith Allen, the manager and owner of several McDonald’s restaurants where White was employed, discriminated against him on the basis of sex and age and feed him in retaliation for complaining about the discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment for Allen because White presented no evidence of age discrimination or retaliation and failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by filing a charge of sex discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

On appeal White does not identify any error made by the district court, nor does he develop an argument with citations to legal authority or the record. See Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9)(A); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir.2001). The argument section of his brief consists of two sentences requesting simply that the district court’s judgment be overturned. Mthough we construe the filings of pro se litigants liberally, White still must offer “more than a generalized assertion of error.” Anderson, 241 F.3d at 545.

Accordingly this appeal is DISMISSED.