Brent Jarvis v. Carolyn Colvin, No. 15-2796 (7th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted March 18, 2016 * Decided March 18, 2016 Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge No. 15-2796 BRENT JARVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. v. No. 1:14-cv-00651-TWP-MJD CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge. ORDER Brent Jarvis applied for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income, claiming to be disabled by diabetes, depression, and joint pain. An administrative law judge denied benefits, concluding that these impairments, although severe, do not prevent Jarvis from performing light work. In a thorough order the After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). * No. 15-2796 Page 2 district court upheld that decision as supported by substantial evidence. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On appeal Jarvis does not challenge the district court’s conclusions or present a legal argument; instead, he asserts that his health has not improved and that no employer will hire him. Although we construe pro se filings liberally, Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001), we cannot find in Davis’s brief any challenge to the district court’s decision. The brief contains only a request that we award benefits ourselves but lacks any discussion of the district court’s analysis or the ALJ’s underlying decision. Even pro se litigants must comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8), which requires that an appellate brief contain a cogent argument and reasons supporting it, with citations to authority and relevant parts of the record. Although we “are generally disposed toward providing a litigant the benefit of appellate review,” Anderson, 241 F.3d at 545, we will not craft arguments or conduct legal research on behalf of a litigant. Because Jarvis has not presented an argument, we are left with nothing to review. DISMISSED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
