# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted February 16, 2011 *

Decided February 18, 2011

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 09

‐ 3988

MICHAEL EDWARDS,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellant,

v.

DOCTOR OBADINA,

Defendant

‐ Appellee

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

No. 3:09

‐ cv

‐ 00292

‐ MJR

Michael J. Reagan,

Judge

.

O R D E R

Michael Edwards, an inmate at Danville Correctional Center, appeals the district court’s

dismissal of his suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which he alleged that Dr. Olukunle Obadina, a

prison doctor, violated his Eighth Amendment rights in the course of treating his broken nose.

We dismiss the appeal. NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

* The defendant was not served in the district court and is not participating in this

appeal. Therefore the appeal is submitted on the appellant ʹ s brief and the record. See F ED

. R.

A PP

. P. 34(a)(2)(C).No. 09

‐ 3988 Page 2

Edwards’s complaint alleged that Obadina refused to refer him to an outside hospital for

care after he suffered a broken nose—the result of a punch landed by another inmate.

Obadina’s refusal, the complaint further alleged, left Edwards in “excruciating pain,” and he

continues to have trouble breathing and sleeping and suffers frequent nose bleeds. Edwards

attached medical records to his complaint, some reflecting Obadina’s opinion that an outside

evaluation was not medically necessary because he suffered no airway obstruction and the

deformity to his nose was merely “cosmetic.” Edwards also challenged his custody level and

conditions of confinement. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure

to state a claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, concluding that Edwards’s allegations against Obadina

did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference and that his claims about his custody level

and conditions of confinement did not pertain to Obadina, the sole defendant.

Edwards filed a timely notice of appeal, but a month later he moved under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment, as well as to amend his complaint. The

district court dismissed that motion for lack of jurisdiction, explaining that it was divested of

jurisdiction when Edwards filed his notice of appeal. Edwards then filed two successive

notices of appeal from the judgment, one of which explicitly challenged the district court’s

dismissal of his motion to alter or amend the judgment. We dismissed both notices because

Edwards failed to pay the docketing fees required under Circuit Rule 3(b).

In his appellate brief Edwards, proceeding pro se, vaguely contends that the court erred in

dismissing his motion to alter or amend the judgment. But his first notice of appeal, which is

the only one properly before us, did not—and could not—bring up the later order dismissing

his motion to alter or amend, see F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 4(a)(1); Ackerman v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins.

Co.

, 172 F.3d 467, 468

‐ 69 (7th Cir. 1999). Because he raises no argument challenging the

dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim, he waived the only possible issue we have

jurisdiction to review. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 28(a)(9)(A); Wallace v. McGlothan

, 606 F.3d 410, 421

n.6 (7th Cir. 2010). Even a pro se appellant must present a reason for overturning the district

court’s judgment. See Anderson v. Hardman

, 241 F.3d 544, 545

‐ 46 (7th Cir. 2001).

We make one final observation: the district court improperly invoked the language of fact

pleading when it concluded that Edwards had “not alleged facts indicating deliberate

indifference by Defendant Obadina.” Repeatedly we have emphasized that plaintiffs, including

prisoners whose civil suits are screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, need not plead facts. See, e.g.,

Santiago v. Wells

, 599 F.3d 749, 759 (7th Cir. 2010); George v. Smith

, 507 F.3d 605, 608 (7th Cir.

2007); Simpson v. Nickel

, 450 F.3d 303, 306 (7th Cir. 2006). Edwards does not challenge the

dismissal of his complaint, however, and accordingly the appeal is DISMISSED.