Case Name: Homer CALHOUN, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MITSUBISHI MOTORS NORTH AMERICA, INC., DefendantAppellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-07-21
Citations: 142 F. App'x 922
Docket Number: No. 05-1052; No. 03-1029
Parties: Homer CALHOUN, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MITSUBISHI MOTORS NORTH AMERICA, INC., DefendantAppellee.
Judges: Before BAUER, CUDAHY, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 142
Pages: 922–922

Head Matter:
Homer CALHOUN, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MITSUBISHI MOTORS NORTH AMERICA, INC., DefendantAppellee.
No. 05-1052.
No. 03-1029.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted July 21, 2005.
Decided July 21, 2005.
Before BAUER, CUDAHY, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
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
Homer Calhoun, Jr. is an African-American man who was employed at Mitsubishi Motors' plant in Normal, Illinois from September 2000 until he was fired in April 2003. Calhoun filed suit under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., alleging that he was harassed and eventually fired because of racial discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Mitsubishi for a number of reasons, including that some of Calhoun's claims were untimely and others were barred by a settlement agreement in a previous class action lawsuit, that he failed to present any direct evidence of discrimination, and that he failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the indirect burden-shifting method described in McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973).
Calhoun appeals, but his brief is simply a photocopy of his complaint in the district court with a new cover page. Even a pro se litigant like Calhoun must identify a basis for overturning the district court's judgment and support his argument with citations to the record and relevant legal authority. See Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir.2001); Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9). Calhoun has provided no cognizable argument and, accordingly, his appeal is DISMISSED.