# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted July 30 , 201 8 *

Decided July 30 , 201 8

Before

DIANE P. WOOD , C hief Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER , Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES , Circuit Judge

No. 17

- 3516

VERNON ELLISON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v

.
JAMES JORGENS E N , Defendant

- Appellee

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

.

No. 17

- cv

- 02432

Robert M. Dow, Jr. , Judge

.
O R D E R

Vernon Ellison filed suit alleging that his pension benefits have been wrongfully withheld by James Jorgens e n , the administrator of his union’s pension fund

. Ellison says that Jorgensen ignored evidence that he qualifies for benefits , even after a majority of the fund’s board of trustees voted to award him benefits

. T he distric t judge dismissed the original complaint on Jorgenson’s motion but also recruited counsel who specializes in employee

- benefits law to investigate whether Ellison could plead a plausible claim in

an amend ed complaint

. After determining that Ellison could not, c ounsel withdrew

.

* We have agreed to decide th is case without oral argument because the appeal is frivolous

. F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a)(2)( A ). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 17

- 3516 Page 2

Ellison then filed an amended complaint rehashing his original allegations, using the district court’s standard form titled “ COMPLAINT FOR VIOLAT ION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT S

. ”
The district court screened the complaint and dismissed i t for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court concluded that Ellison state d no claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , because he did not allege that Jorgensen violated any constitutional right or acted under color of state l aw

. The court also said that , like recru ited counsel, it could not find a “basis for allowing the case to proceed under” the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq

. Ellison appeals and has filed a

one

- page brief that Jorgensen says does not comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a) (8), which requires , among other things, that an appellate brief contain a cogent argument with citations to authority

. We agree with Jorgens e n that the appeal must be dismissed for noncompliance with Rule 28(a ) (8)

. Although Ellison is proceeding pro se , he still must file a n appellate brief that contains a discern ible argument

. Yasinskyy v. Holder , 724 F.3d 983, 989 (7th Cir. 2013); Anderson v. Hardman , 24 1 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). Ellison does not address the district court’s decision, nor does he argue that he stated a plausible claim under § 1983 , ERISA , or any other theory of relief

. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 680 (2009); Brooks v. Pactiv Corp. , 729 F.3d 758, 763 (7th Cir. 2013)

. Instead , his brief merely repeats his allegation that the administrator “ refused to give ” him his pension. He does ask this
court to reverse because his “complaint was denied” erroneously, but we cannot meaningfully review an appellate argument that consists of a single bald assertion of

error

. Although we “are generally disposed toward providing a litigant the benefit of appellate review,” we will not concoct arguments or conduct legal research for a litigant. Anderson , 241 F.3d at 545

. Th is appeal is DISMISSED.