Donald Henneberg v. VERNON DEWITT and JANE DOE

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted March 22, 2023
Decided April 7, 2023*
Before
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 22-1152
DONALD HENNEBERG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
VERNON DEWITT and JANE DOE,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
No. 20-cv-00578-SPM
Stephen P. McGlynn,
Judge.
O R D E R
Donald Henneberg, formerly a prisoner at Vandalia Correctional Center, sued an
unidentified correctional officer for constitutional violations related to conditions of
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C). We have substituted Vernon
Dewitt, the current Vandalia Correctional Center warden, for Angela Locke. See F ED. R.
A PP . P. 43.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 22-1152 Page 2
confinement, particularly with regard to the officer’s failure to follow COVID-19 safety
protocols. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court allowed Henneberg to take limited
discovery to identify the correctional officer; the court also added Vandalia’s then-
warden, Angela Locke, as a defendant in her official capacity to respond to Henneberg’s
discovery requests. The court issued an initial scheduling order for the discovery, and
warned Henneberg that failure to comply with the order would result in dismissal.
Henneberg did not comply with the court’s order. He did not file the first
required notice and, according to Locke, did not provide any information to help her
identify the correctional officer. A later submission from Henneberg similarly skirted
the court’s directions by failing to specify additional steps that might be taken to
discover the officer’s identity. And despite stating that he could identify the officer by
looks, Henneberg did not provide a description. Locke then moved to dismiss
Henneberg’s complaint for his failure to comply with the order.
The court, invoking Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, dismissed
the case with prejudice based on Henneberg’s non-compliance with the discovery order.
The court stated that Henneberg had not met the initial deadline or communicated with
Locke. And although Henneberg requested a work roster for the date the incident
occurred, he specified no date for the incident. The court further emphasized that
Henneberg did not provide any physical descriptions of the officer or explain why he
was not participating in discovery.
On appeal Henneberg does not engage with the district court’s reasoning for its
dismissal. Instead, he restates many of the claims in his complaint and argues the merits
of his case. Although Henneberg is proceeding pro se, he still must comply with the
requirements of Rule 28 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which include
citations to legal authorities and the record. See F ED. R. A PP . P. 28(a)(8)(A); Atkins v.
Gilbert, 52 F.4th 359, 361 (7th Cir. 2022). Further, even construing his brief liberally, we
cannot see “more than a generalized assertion of error.” Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d
544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). Because Henneberg has not provided any argument for
vacating the judgment, we must dismiss his appeal.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --