Opinion ID: 1427488
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion to Set Aside Judgment

Text: Argyropoulos also argues that the district court erred in denying her motion seeking to set aside the judgment. In addition, she challenges the denial of two related postjudgment motions seeking to conduct further discovery and several prejudgment motions seeking to compel discovery. Argyropoulos cites no legal authority in support of her argument, but instead simply states that she should be allowed to proceed with further discovery as justice requires. She explains that this argument is tied to her retaliation claim, and that if the court elects to reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment on that claim, she should be allowed to proceed with limited discovery in the interests of justice. This argument is perfunctory and undeveloped, and is therefore waived. See United States v. Hook, 471 F.3d 766, 775 (7th Cir.2006); Smith v. Ne. Ill. Univ., 388 F.3d 559, 569 (7th Cir.2004). Moreover, we are not inclined to reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment on the retaliation claim; thus, the terms of the request make clear that granting it would be futile.