Case ID: f-appx_501/html/0584-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dwayne E. GRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONESTOGA TITLE COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-3097.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 25, 2013.
    
    Decided Feb. 25, 2013.
    
      Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied March 25, 2013.
    Dwayne E. Gray, Indianapolis, IN, pro se.
    Elizabeth J. Wysong Berg, Goodin Abernathy, Bryan H. Babb, Bose McKinney & Evans, LLP, Richard M. Malad, Cohen & Malad, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge, ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge and DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge.
    
      
       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)(C).
    
    
      
       Circuit Judge liana Diamond Rovner did not participate in the consideration of this petition for rehearing.
    
   ORDER

Dwayne Gray, an Indiana citizen, appeals the dismissal of his complaint in which he accused six companies of violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Truth In Lending Act (TILA), see 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1667f, and state law, in connection with a foreclosure action on his property. The district court dismissed the complaint because none of the defendants was a state actor; the complaint failed to state a claim under TILA; and the lone state-law claim warranting the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction was barred by res judicata.

On appeal Gray does not develop any legal argument challenging the basis of the dismissal. A brief must contain “contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.” Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9)(A). Gray asserts that the district court was wrong to dismiss the complaint, but does not explain why. He instead rehashes the allegations — vague as they are — from his complaint and appears to add others about state-court litigation surrounding the foreclosure. We construe pro se filings liberally, but even a pro se brief must contain more than a general assertion of error. See Correa v. White, 518 F.3d 516, 517-18 (7th Cir.2008); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545-46 (7th Cir.2001).

DISMISSED.