Catherine McLachlan v. Michael Astrue, No. 09-3655 (7th Cir. 2010)
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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 August 25, 2010* Decided August 25, 2010 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge No. 09 3655 CATHERINE A. MCLACHLAN Plaintiff Appellant, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. v. No. 03 C 2297 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant Appellee. Martin C. Ashman, Magistrate Judge. O R D E R Catherine McLachlan applied for supplemental security income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381a, 1382c, claiming that she could not work because of pain in her left arm and shoulder. The Social Security Administration denied her application initially and upon reconsideration, and an administrative law judge * After examining 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)(A). No. 09 3655 Page 2 concluded, after a hearing at which both McLachlan and her attorney appeared, that McLachlan was not disabled. With counsel, she sought judicial review and consented to proceed before a magistrate judge who, in a lengthy and thorough decision, granted summary judgment for the Commissioner. McLachlan is proceeding pro se on appeal and asserts, without any elaboration, that the ALJ s decision was not supported by the weight of the evidence. Her brief consists largely of excerpts of an ALJ s decision in another matter and a pleading from a different social security case. The brief does not refer to facts in the record or contain an argument consisting of more than a generalized assertion of error. Consequently, the appeal warrants dismissal under FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9)(A). See Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001) (even pro se litigants must comply with Rule 28(a)(9)). 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.
