Case Name: Ronny CUNNINGHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAXIMUS, INC., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-22
Citations: 83 F. App'x 844
Docket Number: No. 03-2671
Parties: Ronny CUNNINGHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAXIMUS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 83
Pages: 844–844

Head Matter:
Ronny CUNNINGHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAXIMUS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 03-2671.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 18, 2003.
Decided Dec. 22, 2003.
Ronny Cunningham, pro se, Aurora, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
James J. Convery, Laner, Muchin, Dom-brow, Becker, Levin & Tominberg, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before POSNER, COFFEY, and KANNE, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff misidentified the defendant in the district court as "Maximus Staff,” however, it is correctly identified on appeal as "Maximus, Inc."
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).

Opinion:
ORDER
Ronny Cunningham, an Illinois resident, filed an 86-page pro se complaint in the district court alleging that Maximus, apparently a company that collects child support payments, harassed, defamed, and stole money from him based on Maximus's repeated attempts to collect child support payments. The district court granted Maximus's motion to dismiss on the grounds that Cunningham failed to allege a basis for federal jurisdiction and that none was apparent from the complaint.
On appeal, Cunningham argues in the most general terms that the district court wrongly dismissed the complaint. We note that Cunningham's appellate brief fails to conform to the requirements of Fed. R.App. Proc. 28(a)(9) and 30, because he failed to present a coherent legal argument supported by relevant legal authority. We have dismissed pro se litigants' appeals for similar deficiencies. See, e.g., Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545-46 (7th Cir.2001). Cunningham has failed to present a coherent argument and to respond to the district court's conclusion that he had not alleged a basis for federal jurisdiction.
DISMISSED