A fte r ex am in in g th e b rie fs a n d th e re c or d , w e h av e c on c lu d ed th atora l arg u m en t is * unnecessary. Thus, the appeal i s s ubm i tte d on the bri ef s a nd the re cor d. S ee F ED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2) . 

# United States Court of App eals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 60 604 Subm i tte d M ay 11, 20 09 * Deci ded M ay 18, 20 09 B efo re IL A N A D IA M O N D R O V N E R, Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E P . W O O D , Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E S. SY K E S, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 08- 2768 DARO WEI LBUR G , P laint if f-A ppell ant,

v. SU SA N SU G G S, etal., D efend a nts -A pp ellees
. A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe CentralDis tr i ct o fI l l i noi s. N o. 06
- 3222 J eanne E. S cot t, Judg e . O R D E R Dar o W ei lbur ga ppea l s fr o m the de ni alo fhi s se co nd mot i o n t o r ec o ns i derthe di smi ss alo fhi s su i t ag ains t o ffi ci al s o fthe Ta y l o r vi l l e Cor r ec ti o na lCe nt era s wel la s th e Illino is D ep ar tm en t o f C or re c tio n s. In h is s u it, W eilb u rg alleg ed th atth e p ris on h eld h im beyo nd hi s pro per re l eas e date and that the Depart m ent o fCor re cti ons defa m ed hi m by posting o n i ts w ebsi te i naccurat e info rm ati on about hi s cr i m e. The di str i ct c ourtdi sm i sse d NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To be ci ted o nl y in acco rdance w i th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 08
- 2768 Page 2

f orf ai l ure to sta te a cl ai m , and twenty- ei ght day s l ate r, W ei lburg fi l ed hi s fi rs t m oti on for recon side ration, w hich the d istri ct cou rt de nied
. A bou t four m ont hs after the d istri ct cou rt d en ied W eilb u rg ’s m ot ion, he ag ain m ov ed for re c on sid er at ion, arg u in g th atn ew ly d iscovered eviden ce called into q ue stion th e d istri ct cou rt’s ruling . Th e d istri ct cou rt d en ied th at m ot ion to o b ec au se th e e vid en c e in qu es tio n d id n otaffe c t it s o rig in al ru lin g. W eilb u rg th en filed a n ot ice of ap p ea l th atw as tim ely on ly a s t o th e o rd er d en yin g h is seco nd m oti on forr eco nsi derat i on. Accordi ngl y, we l i m i ted the appealto a re vi ew o fthat o r d e ra n d w e n o w a ffi r m. A s a thr esho l d m att er, the appell ees co ntend that w e l ack j uri sdic ti on due to f atal er ro rs i n W ei lburg’ s no ti ce o fappeal
. As the appell ees expl ai n, W ei lburg’ s no ti ce doe s no t desi gnate the or der b ei ng appeal ed and i t doe s no t nam e the co urt to w hi ch the appeal was tak en. S ee F ED . R. A PP . P. 3 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( B)
- ( C) . B utwh e n he fi l e d the n o t i c e , Wei lb ur ga t t a c he d a d oc ke tin g s ta te m en t in w h ich h e s u m m ar ize d th e a rg u m en ts h e w an te d to m ak e o n ap p ea l. I n th at d ocket ing state m en t, W eilbu rg asserts th at “[t]he en tire opinion from the U
. S. D ist ric t C ou rt. . . is w ith ou t m er it,” an d th atth e c ou rt ’s ru lin g a fte r h e s u b m itt ed “n ew ly d isc ov er ed ev id en c e” w as “c on tr ar y t o th e e vid en c e p re se n te d .” Feder alRule o fA pp el l ate Pro cedure 3( c) ( 4) r equi re s that “ [ a] n appealm ust no t be d ism iss ed for in for m alit y of fo rm .” A c c or d in gly , w e “ c on st ru e t h e R u les libe ra lly in deter m i ni ng wh ethertheyhave bee n com pli ed w i th. ” Tor re s v. O akl and Sc ave nge rCo. , 48 7 U . S. 31 2, 31 7 ( 1988 ) . W ei lburg’ s dock eting st ate m ent s how s that he i ntended to appeal fr o m the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s unde r l y i ngj udg m en t—tha t appe alwas unt i m ely, tho ugh— an d from i ts ruling on th e secon d m otion to recon side r. Th us , his f ail ure to tech nically satisfy Rule 3( c) ( 1) ( B) i s no t f atalbec ause “suffi ci ent no ti ce was g i ven t o appri se the o therpart i es of th e is su es ch alle n ge d .” Unite d S t at e s v. Segal, 43 2 F . 3d 767, 772 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ; se e a l so M ar t i n v . F ERC, 199 F.3d 13 70 , 137 2-7 3 (D .C . C ir. 20 00 ); D e nve r& Ri o GrandeW e s tR. R. Co. v. U ni on Pac. R. R. Co. , 11 9 F . 3d 847, 84 8- 49 ( 10th Cir . 19 97) . M or eov er, ther e was no am bi gui ty re gar ding w hi ch co urt W ei lburg w anted to hearhi s a pp eal
. Ours i s the o nl y c i rcui t with j uri sdic ti on o verthe appeal, so the appell ees co uld nothave bee n m i sl ed by the o m i ssi on o f the c ourt ’ s nam e. S ee B rad ley v . W o rk, 154 F.3d 70 4, 70 7 (7 th C ir. 19 98 ); Or t iz v . Jo h n O. Butl e rCo. , 94 F. 3d 1121 , 11 25 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96) . Though W ei lburg’ s no ti ce o fappealwas f ar fro m per fect, i t doe s no t pr eve nt us fro m co nsi deri ng the appeal : “‘ i nept’ at tem pts to com plywith Rul e 3 ( c) ar e a ccepted as l ong as the a pp el l ee i s no t har m ed. ” M o ran Fo o ds, Inc . v. M i d-Atl ant i c M arke tD e ve l opm e ntCo. , LL C, 476 F.3d 436 , 440 (7th C ir. 2007). M ost of W eilbu rg’s argum en ts on ap p eal attack th e m erits ofthe d istri ct cou rt’s unde r l y i ngo r derdi smi ss i nghi s su i t, b uta s we ha ve e xpl aine d, o urr ev i ew i s l i m i te d t o the denia lo fW ei lburg’ s s eco nd m oti on t o re consi der. The di str i ct c ourtdeni ed that m oti onN o. 08
- 2768 Page 3

because the evi dence W ei lburg chara cter i zed as newly disc ove re d did not cal li nto questi on i ts o r i g i na lj udg m en t. Wei lbur gs ee m s to thi nktha t we may r ev i ew the o r i g i na lj udg m en t because the cour t “ re l i ed” on i t when d enyi ng hi s s eco nd m oti on forr eco nsi derat i on. Not so; a m oti on t o re consi der i s no t a n appeal, se e Stoll erv. Pu reFis hing Inc. , 52 8 F . 3d 478, 48 0 (7t h C ir. 20 08 ); Bel l v. Eas t m an Kodak Co. , 21 4 F . 3d 798, 80 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) , so the dist ri ct c ou rtco rre c tly refu se d to rec on sid er th e a n aly sis of its u n d er lyin g or d er . W e re vie w on ly the di str i ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fW ei lburg’ s s eco nd m oti on t o re consi der a nd we w i l lr eve rs e onl y i fthe cour t abused i ts disc re ti on. S ee Sto ller, 52 8 F . 3d at 480. W ei lburg m ake s tw o ar gum ents f orwh y the ev i dence he pr ese nted r equi re d re c on sid er at ion . Fir st, he co n te n d s t h atth e e vid en c e d em on st ra te s t h atth e p ris on kn ew it w as hol ding hi m past hi s pro per re l eas e date
. S eco nd , he a rgues that the ev i dence contr adic ts the di str i ct c ourt ’ s r uling tha t e ven i fhe was hel d past hi s pro per re l eas e date , he f ail ed to state a claim f or a proce d ura l d ue proc ess violati on be cau se th ere w ere adequate s tat e r em edi es avai l abl e. S ee To ney -E l v. Fra nz en , 777F.2d 12 24 (7t h C ir. 19 85 ). W ei lbur g ’ s ev i den ce c o ns i st ed o fs ta te c o ur t do cument s, i nc l udi ngt r an sc r i pts a nd the dec i si o n fr o m a s ta te mandamus pr o ce edinghe l d a fte rdi smi ss al, pr i so n do cument s, a nd tw o deci si ons fro m st ate co urt case s no t invol vi ng W ei lburg. E v e n a s s u mi n gth a tWe i lb u r g ’ s e v i d e n c e i s “ n e wl y d i s c o v e r e d ” a n d th a ti ts h o ws co nc l us i ve l y tha t th e pr i so n int en ti o na l l y he l d hi m b ey o nd hi s r el ea se da te , tha t sh o wi ng m ake s no di ffer ence to the di str i ct c ourt ’ s r uling. W ei lburg’ s co m pla i nt as ser ts that he was inten tionally he ld beyon d his rel ease d ate, so, w ithou t any eviden ce at all, the d istri ct cou rt accepte d that a sse rt i on a s t rue w hen r uling o n the m oti on t o dism i ss. S ee Heck er v. D eere & Co. , 5 56 F . 3d 575, 5 80 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) . T he do cument s fr o m W ei lbur g ’ s m an damus p ro c ee d in g re flec t a co n c es sio n on th e p ar t o f th e a p p elle es , in co n tr ad ict ion to th eir p os itio n be for e t h e d ist ric t c ou rt, th atW eilb u rg sh ou ld h av e b ee n rele as ed 72 d ay s s oo n er . T ha t ch an ge in pos iti on is hard ly com m en d able, bu t it ha s no bea ring on th e d istri ct cou rt’s rul i ng, wh i ch r est ed on the av ai l abi l i ty ofst ate r em edi es. The s ta te c o ur t’ s r ul i ngo n W ei lbur g ’ s m an damus pe ti ti o n i s r el ev an t to the avai l abi l i ty ofst ate r em edi es, but i t doe s no t co ntra dictthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s r uling tha t a st at e re m ed y e x ist s. T h e s ta te co u rtru led “re lu c ta n tly ” t h atth er e w as n o re m ed y a va ilab le to W ei lburg i n a m andam us pro ceedi ng. But, as the cour t pointed out, an I l l i noi s inm ate hel d beyo nd hi s r el eas e date does have a re m edy in the I l l i noi s Courto fCl ai m s. S ee, e .g., E vans v. Ill inois , 55 I l l
. Ct. Cl
. 39 5 ( 2002 ) . Thus, ev en i fthe dist ri ct c ourtco uld have consi dered the st ate co urt’ s r uling, se e Bie s e k v. So o L i neR. R. Co. , 440 F.3d 410 , 412 (7th C ir.N o. 08
- 2768 Page 4

20 06 ) (d ist in gu ish in g b et w ee n ev id en c e t h atis n ew ly c re at ed an d ev id en c e t h atis n ew ly di s c o v e r e d) , th at ruling d id n ot affect th e ana lysi s in the u nd erlying order. A FFI RMED .