* After an examination of 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).

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted June 9, 2005*

Decided June 20, 2005

Before

Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 03-2629

MICHELLE FREDERIKSEN and

JEFF TALANO,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

CITY OF KANKAKEE,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States 

District Court for the Central 

District of Illinois

No. 01-2048

Michael P. McCuskey, 

Chief Judge.

ORDER

Michelle Frederiksen and Jeff Talano, no strangers to state and federal

litigation, see Frederiksen v. City of Lockport, 384 F.3d 437, 437 (7th Cir. 2004),

sued the City of Kankakee claiming that city officials violated their due process and

Fourth Amendment rights by entering their property to enforce zoning and building

codes. After a jury trial, the defendants prevailed. Frederiksen and Talano now

appeal, and, although they ostensibly challenge several of the district court’s

rulings on motions they filed during trial, the only coherent argument in their brief

challenges the court’s jury instructions. 
No. 03-2629 Page 2

Frederiksen and Talano argue that the district court erred in instructing the

jury that “the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures of

property and searches of property without a warrant.” They contend that the jury

should have been instructed to find a Fourth Amendment violation if the plaintiffs

experienced a “meaningful interference with [their] possessory interests” in their

property. Frederiksen and Talano never proposed such a jury instruction in the

district court. They did object to the instructions on different grounds, but they

have waived the specific objection they raise here by failing to make it in the

district court. See Harper v. Albert, 400 F.3d 1052, 1068 (7th Cir. 2005). 

Frederiksen and Talano’s other assertions of error regarding, for example,

the district court’s decision to reject “testimony and evidence relating to the state

court trial,” and its “holding that the local rules apply in the forming of jury

instructions but not in the final pretrial order,” are insufficiently developed to

permit meaningful review. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9) (argument must contain

contentions and reasons for them); Voelker v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc.,

353 F.3d 516, 527 (7th Cir. 2003); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th

Cir. 2001). Appellants must do more than make general claims of error; they must

point specifically to rulings by the district court and develop arguments about why

those rulings are erroneous. We therefore decline to consider Frederiksen and

Talano’s undeveloped assertions of error. 

As a final matter, while this appeal was progressing Frederiksen and Talano

incurred sanctions in another appeal, number 03-2678, and to date they have failed

to pay their fine. Despite being barred from filing any more papers in the courts of

this circuit until they paid their fine, they managed to file a reply brief in this case

in contravention of that order. By pressing forward with this appeal, Frederiksen

and Talano continue to disregard the court’s warning about pursuing frivolous

litigation. The plaintiffs have 14 days to show cause why they should not be

sanctioned for their conduct in this appeal. 

AFFIRMED.