Case Name: Robert MINARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ryan WARNER, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-30
Citations: 70 F. App'x 905
Docket Number: No. 03-1552
Parties: Robert MINARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ryan WARNER, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 70
Pages: 905–906

Head Matter:
Robert MINARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ryan WARNER, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 03-1552.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted July 29, 2003.
Decided July 30, 2003.
Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and record, we conclude 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
Robert Minard filed a complaint in state court against Staff Sergeant Ryan Warner, a United States Army recruiter, seeking enlistment in the United States Army and back pay of $1,100 per month. Sgt. Warner removed the ease to federal court, 28 U.S.C. § 144103), 1442a, and moved for dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), (6). The district court dismissed the case on both grounds.
We do not reach the merits of this appeal because neither Minard's initial brief nor his reply brief complies with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(9), which requires appellants to provide contentions and reasons for challenging the district court's decision along with relevant legal and record citations. Minard's briefs fail to satisfy any of these requirements. He does not even recount the underlying facts of his case but instead offers incoherent propositions about our national defense. Although we construe pro se filings such as Minard's liberally, pro se litigants must still comply with Rule 28(a)(9) or their appeals will be dismissed. See Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir.2001). Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED.