Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-16-02926/USCOURTS-ca7-16-02926-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted December 12, 2016*

Decided December 13, 2016

Before

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 16-2926

MICHAEL A. MAXIE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

EDWARD BRUEMMER, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States 

District Court for the Northern District 

of Indiana, South Bend Division.

No. 3:13cv1280

Philip P. Simon,

Chief Judge.

O R D E R

Michael Maxie, a pro se litigant and former Indiana prisoner, claims in this suit 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that administrators at Westville Correctional Facility by failing to 

remedy certain housing conditions, violated the Eighth Amendment. The district court 

granted summary judgment for the defendants and Maxie has appealed.

 

* We have unanimously agreed to decide this case without oral argument because 

the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral 

argument would not significantly aid the court. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 16-2926 Document: 10 Filed: 12/13/2016 Pages: 2
No. 16-2926 Page 2

Maxie alleged that the warden, two of the warden’s top assistants, and Maxie’s 

counselor did nothing to remediate purported asbestos and toxic “black mold” in the 

showers or to provide adequate heat in his cell during a six-day period in October 2012.

In granting summary judgment for the defendants, the district court reasoned that 

Maxie had not presented evidence from which a jury reasonably could find that asbestos

or mold, if present in the shower area, were “objectively severe or posed a serious risk of

substantial harm.” Likewise, the court added, Maxie had not presented evidence that the 

defendants knew about the cold temperatures in his cell. The court observed that 

Maxie’s suspicion about asbestos exposure was based on hearsay from other inmates. 

And although Maxie himself saw mold in the showers for several months, the court 

noted that he had not presented evidence that any breathing problem or other illness 

resulted from his use of the showers. As for the six days of cold temperatures in Maxie’s 

cell, the district court recognized that Maxie is competent to testify about the cold but 

concluded that Maxie’s own affidavit conclusively establishes that he had not tried to 

notify any defendant about the cold conditions until two weeks after the fact. Thus, a 

jury could not reasonably conclude that the defendants were deliberately indifferent.

On appeal Maxie simply restates his allegations without challenging—or even 

acknowledging—the district court’s analysis of the evidence submitted at summary 

judgment. And though we construe the briefs of pro se litigants liberally, an appellant’s 

brief must articulate a basis for overturning the judgment. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8)(A); 

Haxhiu v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 685, 691 (7th Cir. 2008); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 

545–546 (7th Cir. 2001). In his brief Maxie does not suggest how the district court erred in 

dismissing his Eighth Amendment action, and we will not craft arguments for him. 

See Yasinskyy v. Holder, 724 F.3d 983, 989 (7th Cir. 2013).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-2926 Document: 10 Filed: 12/13/2016 Pages: 2