Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-10-01111/USCOURTS-ca7-10-01111-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
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)(C).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted July 28, 2010*

Decided July 28, 2010

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 10‐1111

BRIDGETTE V. WEAVER,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

BORGWARNER TRANSMISSION

SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 07 C 2538

Elaine E. Bucklo,

Judge.

O R D E R

Bridgette Weaver filed suit in 2007 against her former employer, BorgWarner

Transmission Systems, alleging that it had discriminated against her on the basis of race,

sex, disability, and age, and violated her rights under the Family Medical Leave Act.  The

district court granted Weaver leave to proceed in forma pauperis.  Two years later

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 10-1111 Document: 17 Filed: 07/28/2010 Pages: 2
No. 10‐1111 Page 2

BorgWarner moved for summary judgment, asserting that Weaver had falsely alleged

poverty on her application to proceed in forma pauperis.  (BorgWarner cited Weaver’s 2006

tax return, which stated that her income that year was nearly $200,000, and IRS forms

showing that she won almost $94,000 from gambling in the 12 months before her

application.)  Because Weaver did not comply with Local Rule 56.1(b)(3) in her response,

the district court deemed BorgWarner’s statements of fact admitted.  See N.D. ILL. R.

56.1(b)(3)(C).  The court concluded that Weaver’s representations on her application were

“undeniably false.”  The court therefore granted summary judgment for BorgWarner

and—in light of Weaver’s misrepresentations—dismissed her suit with prejudice.  See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A).

Proceeding pro se, Weaver appeals, but in doing so pays almost no heed to the

requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a).  Her opening brief is two pages

long and lacks—among many other necessities—an argument section.  See FED. R. APP.

P. 28(a)(9).  In fact, it offers no argument at all about the district court’s decision, and no

citations to legal authority or portions of the record that might aid her appeal.  See id.  Her

reply brief attempts to fix some of the deficiencies in her opening brief, but it, too, contains

no argument section; instead, Weaver only offers hints of possible contentions, scattered

across her statement of the case and statement of facts.  These potential arguments are

undeveloped, unsupported, and in any event come too late.  See Bodenstab v. County of Cook,

569 F.3d 651, 658 (7th Cir. 2009).

Although we must construe Weaver’s pro se pleadings liberally, she is not free to

ignore procedural rules.  See Pearle Vision, Inc. v. Romm, 541 F.3d 751, 758 (7th Cir. 2008).

Failure to comply with Rule 28 warrants dismissal of an appeal.  See Anderson v. Hardman,

241 F.3d 544, 545‐46 (7th Cir. 2001).  It does not fall to us, in the wake of Weaver’s

noncompliance, to craft arguments and perform legal research for her.  See id.  Furthermore,

Weaver’s only factual assertion in her reply about her application to proceed in forma

pauperis misses the point.  She insists that at the time of her application, she had no money.

Yet the application required her to list funds received “in the past twelve months,” and she

listed nothing but public assistance despite having received substantial other income during

that period.

With Weaver providing no cogent argument for disturbing the district court’s

decision, we DISMISS the appeal.

Case: 10-1111 Document: 17 Filed: 07/28/2010 Pages: 2