Sameidra Carter v. Illinois Gaming Board

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted December 21, 2022*
Decided December 22, 2022
Before
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
No. 21-2741
SAMEIDRA CARTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ILLINOIS GAMING BOARD, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 18 C 7039
Gary Feinerman,
Judge.
O R D E R
After Sameidra Carter was fired from her job as an investigator with the Illinois
Gaming Board, she sued the Board and various employees for violations of the First
Amendment; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3; and the
Illinois State Officials and Employees Ethics Act, 5 ILCS 430/15-10. The district court
dismissed the First Amendment claim for failure to state a claim, F ED. R. C IV. P. 12(b)(6),
* After examining the record, we have agreed to decide this case without oral
argument because the appeal is frivolous. See F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(A).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 21-2741 Page 2
and the Ethics Act claim (with regard to three defendants who she did not allege to
have taken any retaliatory action against her) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The court later granted summary judgment to the defendants on
Carter’s remaining claims under Title VII (on grounds of untimeliness) and the Ethics
Act (as preempted by the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/8-111(D)).
On appeal Carter generally challenges the court’s ruling but does not address its
reasoning or provide any meaningful basis for disturbing the judgment. See F ED. R. APP .
P. 28(a)(8)(A) (brief must contain the appellant’s “contentions and reasons for them,
with citation to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies”).
Although we are mindful that Carter is representing herself on appeal, it is not our role
to craft parties’ arguments for them, and even self-represented parties must comply
with Rule 28(a). See Atkins v. Gilbert, 52 F.4th 359, 361 (7th Cir. 2022); Shipley v. Chi. Bd. of
Election Comm’rs, 947 F.3d 1056, 1062–63 (7th Cir. 2020).
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --