*

  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).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois  60604

Submitted May 1, 2009*

Decided May 5, 2009

Before

      RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

                   MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

                              JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No. 08‐3846

ALBERT H. BEAVER,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL G. MELOTTE, II, et al.,

Defendants‐Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 08‐C‐187

William C. Griesbach,

Judge

O R D E R

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 08‐3846 Page 2

This case arises out of a dispute between Albert Beaver and the individuals who run

an adult care facility where Beaver’s adult daughter resides.  After observing what he

believed were health and safety violations at the facility, Beaver contacted the local fire

department and the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services.  Shortly

thereafter the owners revoked his visitation rights.  Beaver then filed this lawsuit, alleging

that the defendants’ decision constituted retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities

Act.  See 42 U.S.C. § 12203.

The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that Beaver

had not engaged in any activity protected by the ADA.  The court also raised the prospect

that he would be sanctioned with fines: it noted that many of Beaver’s claims were

“completely baseless” and admonished that “any future action filed in this court involving

baseless claims will be subject to swift monetary sanction.”  The court denied Beaver’s

subsequent post‐judgment motion for relief because “there was no evidence that [Beaver]

had been retaliated against in violation of the ADA.”

On appeal Beaver argues first that the district courtʹs decision and subsequent order

do not comport with Circuit Rule 50, which requires a district court to provide reasons for

decisions that terminate litigation.  Beaver’s argument borders on the frivolous.  The courtʹs

summary judgment order, which ran five pages long, examined the underlying merits of

the suit in detail—it analyzed several ADA provisions, applied them to Beaver’s complaint,

and explained that the ADA did not protect Beaver because he “was not retaliated against

for opposing any acts made unlawful by the ADA, nor was he participating in any

investigation under the ADA.”  Moreover, to the extent that Rule 50 even applies to the

courtʹs post‐judgment order, see Stoller v. Pure Fishing, Inc., 528 F.3d 478, 480 (7th Cir. 2008),

its purposes were met by the district court’s seven‐line order, which reiterated that Beaver

had not presented any evidence of retaliation.

Beaver next challenges the court’s sanction—admonishing him that he would be

fined for future frivolous filings—as violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c) because

the court did not first issue an order to “show cause” why his conduct did not violate the

rule.  But in April 2008, at a motions hearing, the district judge said that he planned to

“exercise my authority under Rule 11(c) to consider sanctions, including attorneys’ fees in

this case” because “there really is no basis in any law for you to bring this action.”  And two

months later the court followed up its concern by holding a hearing on Rule 11 sanctions,

which led to the admonition in question.  Beaver offers no articulable basis for why these

proceedings were insufficient under Rule 11.

AFFIRMED.