Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02796/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02796-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 865
Nature of Suit: Social Security - RSI (405(g))
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 18, 2016*

Decided March 18, 2016

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 15-2796

BRENT JARVIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of Indiana, 

Indianapolis Division.

No. 1:14-cv-00651-TWP-MJD

Tanya Walton Pratt,

Judge.

O R D E R

Brent Jarvis applied for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security 

Income, claiming to be disabled by diabetes, depression, and joint pain. An 

administrative law judge denied benefits, concluding that these impairments, although 

severe, do not prevent Jarvis from performing light work. In a thorough order the 

 

* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is 

unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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: 15-2796 Document: 17 Filed: 03/18/2016 Pages: 2
No. 15-2796 Page 2

district court upheld that decision as supported by substantial evidence. See 42 U.S.C. 

§ 405(g).

On appeal Jarvis does not challenge the district court’s conclusions or present a

legal argument; instead, he asserts that his health has not improved and that no 

employer will hire him. Although we construe pro se filings liberally, Anderson v. 

Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001), we cannot find in Davis’s brief any challenge 

to the district court’s decision. The brief contains only a request that we award benefits 

ourselves but lacks any discussion of the district court’s analysis or the ALJ’s underlying 

decision. Even pro se litigants must comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 

28(a)(8), which requires that an appellate brief contain a cogent argument and reasons 

supporting it, with citations to authority and relevant parts of the record. Although we 

“are generally disposed toward providing a litigant the benefit of appellate review,”

Anderson, 241 F.3d at 545, we will not craft arguments or conduct legal research on behalf 

of a litigant. Because Jarvis has not presented an argument, we are left with nothing to 

review. 

DISMISSED.

Case: 15-2796 Document: 17 Filed: 03/18/2016 Pages: 2