Case Name: Neser Em Neheh ALI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHICAGO BANCORP, INC., et. al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-23
Citations: 334 F. App'x 761
Docket Number: No. 09-1570
Parties: Neser Em Neheh ALI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHICAGO BANCORP, INC., et. al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge, RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge and TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 334
Pages: 761–762

Head Matter:
Neser Em Neheh ALI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHICAGO BANCORP, INC., et. al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-1570.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted June 23, 2009.
Decided June 23, 2009.
Neser Em Neheh Ali, Chicago, IL, pro se.
Before RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge, RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge and TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge.
The defendants were not served with process in district court and are not participating in this appeal. After examining the appellant's brief and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the appellant's brief and the record. See Fed R. App P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
ORDER
Neser Em Neheh Ali sued Bancorp and other defendants for what appear to be commercial and contractual claims. His complaint is incoherent and contains no discernable claims, though Ali labels himself and the defendants as "vessels" in an attempt to invoke the admiralty jurisdiction of federal court. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Ali's appellate brief is similarly incomprehensible. A litigant in this court must "supply an argument consisting of more than a generalized assertion of error, with citations to supporting authority." Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9)(A); see Haxhiu v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 685, 691 (7th Cir.2008). And although we construe pro se filings liberally, even litigants proceeding without the benefit of counsel must articulate some reason for disturbing the district court's judgment. See Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir.2001). Ali does not challenge the district court's reasoning. In fact, it is impossible to discern any argument at all.
DISMISSED.