Zachary McGraw v. City of Chicago, et al, No. 08-1974 (7th Cir. 2008)
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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 November 13, 2008* Decided November 13, 2008 Before DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge No. 08 1974 ZACHARY A. McGRAW, JR., Plaintiff Appellant, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. v. No. 07 C 6481 CITY OF CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION, Defendant Appellee. Robert W. Gettleman, Judge. O R D E R In November 2007 Zachary McGraw sued the City of Chicago Department of Aviation, claiming that it discriminated against him on political grounds by not promoting him, and retaliated against him for previously filing a race based employment discrimination suit. Judge Zagel dismissed the suit as frivolous because McGraw failed to file it within 90 days of receiving his right to sue letter from the Equal Employment * Defendant appellee was not served with process in the district court. Accordingly, it is not a party to 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. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2). No. 08 1974 Page 2 Opportunity Commission. McGraw then filed a self styled Motion Not to Dismiss, vaguely invoking political discrimination under the terms of the consent decree in Shakman v. Democratic Org. of Cook County. Judge Gettleman, to whom the case had been reassigned, denied the motion as untimely and duplicative of claims that McGraw had raised in a related suit. McGraw s subsequent motion to reopen the case under FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) was also denied, and he appeals. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(9)(A) requires the appellant s brief to set forth appellant s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies. FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9)(A); see Haxhiu v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 685, 691 (7th Cir. 2008). An argument must consist of more than a generalized assertion of error with citations to supporting authority. See Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). McGraw s appellate brief contains only generalized assertions of misconduct on the part of the City of Chicago, and he does not challenge, or even mention, the district court s dismissal of the case. Although we construe pro se filings liberally, we must still be able to discern cogent arguments in any appellate brief, even from a pro se litigant. See id. Here we have nothing to review because McGraw has not pointed to any legal or factual error in the district court s decision. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
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.
