Richard Kelly v. Jacob Null, et al, No. 09-3846 (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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 November 30, 2010* Decided November 30, 2010 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge No. 09-3846 RICHARD B. KELLY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JACOB NULL, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. No. 08-322-GPM G. Patrick Murphy, Judge. ORDER Richard Kelly, an inmate at Tamms Correctional Center, appeals from the judgments against him following the trial of two consolidated actions he brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting related Eighth Amendment claims against various employees from the Illinois Department of Corrections. Kelly essentially claimed that two defendants, Jacob Null and Jamie Sisk, sexually assaulted him; that two others, John Branche and Shane Osman, condoned the assault; and that another, Terry Calipher, denied him adequate * 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. A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). No. 09-3846 Page 2 medical care for his injuries. At the close of Kelly s case, the court granted judgment for defendants Branche, Osman, and Calipher. The jury returned verdicts in favor of the remaining defendants, Null and Sisk. On appeal Kelly does not identify any specific error made by the district court or develop an argument supported by citations to legal authority or the record. See FED. R. A PP. P. 28(a)(9); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). Kelly s brief consists only of short factual statements and conclusory allegations of misconduct committed by the district court. Although we will construe a pro se litigant s brief liberally, we will not attempt to craft arguments and perform legal research on the litigant s behalf when the litigant fails to do so. See Anderson, 241 F.3d at 545-46. The appeal is 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.