Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02734/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02734-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dunbar Armored, Inc.
Appellee
Vincent Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted September 7, 2016*

Decided September 12, 2016

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

No. 15-2734

VINCENT WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DUNBAR ARMORED, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division.

No. 14 C 5281

Charles R. Norgle,

Judge.

O R D E R

Vincent Williams sued Dunbar Armored, Inc., his former employer, alleging that 

the company had subjected him to a hostile work environment on the basis of his race 

and sex and that they retaliated against him when he complained by firing him. 

See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 2000e(2)(a)(1), 2000e(3)(a). After Williams filed the suit, he failed 

to participate in discovery. He did not answer calls and letters from Dunbar’s counsel 

 

* We have unanimously agreed to decide the case without oral argument because 

the issues have been authoritatively decided. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(B).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 15-2734 Document: 25 Filed: 09/12/2016 Pages: 2
No. 15-2734 Page 2

attempting to establish a joint discovery plan; he did not answer Dunbar’s 

interrogatories and requests for production of documents; he did not respond to 

Dunbar’s repeated overtures to comply with the court’s scheduling orders; and he did 

not respond to Dunbar’s motion to compel him to respond to its outstanding discovery 

requests. The district court granted the motion to compel after Williams did not appear 

at the hearing. When Williams did not comply with the order, Dunbar moved to

dismiss the suit with prejudice for failure to comply with a discovery order, see FED. R.

CIV. P. 37(b), and failure to prosecute, see FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). Williams did not file a 

response, though he did appear at a hearing on the motion, arguing that he was not a 

lawyer, did not understand the process, and needed more time. The court dismissed the 

case with prejudice; as the court explained, Williams violated the rules of discovery and 

took no action to move the case forward in nearly a year. 

On appeal Williams reproduces portions of his complaint and contests the 

underlying merits of his employment-discrimination claim, but he does not identify any

disagreement with the district court’s reasons for dismissing his lawsuit or cite any 

applicable legal authority. Although we construe the briefs of pro se appellants 

liberally, arguments must be developed and supported to be preserved. See FED. R. APP.

P. 28(a)(8)(A); Rahn v. Bd. of Trustees of N. Ill. Univ., 803 F.3d 285, 295 (7th Cir. 2015); 

Yasinskyy v. Holder, 724 F.3d 983, 989 (7th Cir. 2013).

DISMISSED.

Case: 15-2734 Document: 25 Filed: 09/12/2016 Pages: 2