Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01463/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01463-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John E. Potter
Appellee
Sherman Raines
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1463

___________

Sherman Raines, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

John E. Potter, Postmaster General, *

United States Postal Service, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: January 31, 2007

Filed: February 7, 2007

___________

Before COLLOTON, HANSEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Sherman Raines appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in his employment-discrimination action and moves to consolidate the

appeal with Appeal No. 06-1919. Because Raines’s pro se appellate brief contains no

relevant argument and makes no reference to the summary judgment ruling, we grant

appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with federal rules of

appellate procedure. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a) (what appellant’s brief must contain);

Appellate Case: 06-1463 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/07/2007 Entry ID: 3276262
-2-

Carter v. Lutheran Med. Ctr., 87 F.3d 1025, 1026 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)

(dismissing pro se appeal where appellant’s brief presented no question for appeals

court to decide; brief specifically provided no issues statement and did not identify

any basis of alleged error by district court); Slack v. St. Louis County Gov’t, 919 F.2d

98, 99-100 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (summarily dismissing appeal where

appellant’s brief contained no recitation of facts, did not point out basis of alleged

district court error, and did not challenge district court’s reasoning); Brown v. Frey,

806 F.2d 801, 804 (8th Cir. 1986) (pro se litigants are not excused from compliance

with procedural law). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, and we deny Raines’s motion to

consolidate.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1463 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/07/2007 Entry ID: 3276262