Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-09-03655/USCOURTS-ca7-09-03655-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 

---

*

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)(A).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted August 25, 2010*

Decided August 25, 2010

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

No. 09‐3655

CATHERINE A. MCLACHLAN

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 03 C 2297

Martin C. Ashman,

Magistrate Judge.

O R D E R

Catherine McLachlan applied for supplemental security income benefits under Title

XVI of the Social Security Act, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381a, 1382c, claiming that she could not

work because of pain in her left arm and shoulder.  The Social Security Administration

denied her application initially and upon reconsideration, and an administrative law judge

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 09-3655 Document: 22 Filed: 08/25/2010 Pages: 2
No. 09‐3655 Page 2

concluded, after a hearing at which both McLachlan and her attorney appeared, that

McLachlan was not disabled.  With counsel, she sought judicial review and consented to

proceed before a magistrate judge who, in a lengthy and thorough decision, granted

summary judgment for the Commissioner.

McLachlan is proceeding pro se on appeal and asserts, without any elaboration, that

the ALJ’s decision was not supported by the weight of the evidence.  Her brief consists

largely of excerpts of an ALJ’s decision in another matter and a pleading from a different

social security case.  The brief does not refer to facts in the record or contain an argument

consisting of more than a generalized assertion of error.  Consequently, the appeal warrants

dismissal under FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9)(A).  See Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th

Cir. 2001) (even pro se litigants must comply with Rule 28(a)(9)).

DISMISSED.

Case: 09-3655 Document: 22 Filed: 08/25/2010 Pages: 2