Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-14-03782/USCOURTS-ca7-14-03782-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 368
Nature of Suit: Asbestos Personal Injury - Prod.liab.
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted June 1, 2015*

Decided June 4, 2015

Before

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

No. 14‐3782

LARRY ORUTA,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

CONTINENTAL AIR TRANSPORT,

INC., et al.,

Defendants‐Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 14 C 7164

Thomas M. Durkin,

Judge.

O R D E R

Larry Oruta appeals from the dismissal of his civil complaint for failure to state a

claim for relief. We dismiss the appeal.   

                                                 

* The defendants were not served with process in the district court and are not

participating in this appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we

have concluded that the case is appropriate for summary disposition. 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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: 14-3782 Document: 12 Filed: 06/04/2015 Pages: 2
No. 14‐3782    Page 2

Oruta purported to bring a class‐action lawsuit on behalf of himself and one

other, raising disparate allegations in which he alludes to deficiencies in state

proceedings for workers’ compensation, an unlawful arrest, and exposure to asbestos in

county jail. The district court described the complaint as “incomprehensible,” dismissed

it without prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief, and identified other defects

relating to Oruta’s attempt to bring a class action. Oruta amended his complaint,

restyling it as one under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and naming only himself as the plaintiff. The

district court concluded that Oruta had not cured the deficiencies identified in its earlier

order and dismissed the suit with prejudice.   

On appeal Oruta contests the district court’s ruling and insists that he rectified the

court’s concerns by dropping his fellow plaintiff and abandoning his attempt to pursue a

class action. Oruta may have fixed those two issues, but he has not articulated any

reason to disturb the district court’s conclusion that the allegations in his amended

complaint do not give rise to any cognizable federal claim. Because Oruta fails to

illuminate how his amended complaint alleges sufficient facts to state a plausible claim

for relief, we are left with nothing to review and thus dismiss the appeal. See FED. R. APP.

P. 28(a)(8)(A); Ball v. City of Indianapolis, 760 F.3d 636, 645 (7th Cir. 2014); Anderson v.

Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Case: 14-3782 Document: 12 Filed: 06/04/2015 Pages: 2