Case Name: Doris Queen LAVENDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UIC COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-15
Citations: 676 F. App'x 598
Docket Number: No. 16-3388
Parties: Doris Queen LAVENDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UIC COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge, ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge, DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 676
Pages: 598–598

Head Matter:
Doris Queen LAVENDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UIC COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-3388
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted February 13, 2017
Decided February 15, 2017
Doris Q. Lavender, Pro Se
Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge, ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge, DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because it would not significantly aid the court. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C). The defendants are not participating in this appeal.

Opinion:
ORDER
Doris Queen Lavender sued the UIC College of Dentistry and six dentists for violating her civil rights in fantastical ways, among them allegedly placing a miniature bomb in one of her teeth, electrocuting her "execution style," and wiretapping her. When she applied to proceed in forma pauperis in the district court, the court dismissed the lawsuit because her allegations were too speculative to state a claim on which relief could be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
On appeal Lavender repeats the same fantastical allegations but does not provide a reasoned basis for disturbing the district court's conclusion that her allegations did not state a claim. She therefore has not complied with Rule 28(a)(8) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which requires that an appellate brief contain an argument and reasoning to support it, and which even pro se litigants must follow. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2001).
DISMISSED.