Case ID: f-appx_215/html/0563-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sherman RAINES, Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Appellee.
    No. 06-1463.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 31, 2007.
    Filed: Feb. 7, 2007.
    Sherman Raines, Memphis, TN, pro se.
    
      Thomas S. Rea, Suzanne J. Moore, U.S. Attorney’s Office, St. Louis, MO, for Appellee.
    Before COLLOTON, HANSEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
   [UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Sherman Raines appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment in his employment-discrimination action and moves to consolidate the appeal with Appeal No. 06-1919. Because Raines’s pro se appellate brief contains no relevant argument and makes no reference to the summary judgment ruling, we grant appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with federal rules of appellate procedure. See Fed. R.App. P. 28(a) (what appellant’s brief must contain); Carter v. Lutheran Med. Ctr., 87 F.3d 1025, 1026 (8th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (dismissing pro se appeal where appellant’s brief presented no question for appeals court to decide; brief specifically provided no issues statement and did not identify any basis of alleged error by district court); Slack v. St. Louis County Gov’t, 919 F.2d 98, 99-100 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam) (summarily dismissing appeal where appellant’s brief contained no recitation of facts, did not point out basis of alleged district court error, and did not challenge district court’s reasoning); Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 804 (8th Cir.1986) (pro se litigants are not excused from compliance with procedural law).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, and we deny Raines’s motion to consolidate. 
      
      . The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.