ANGELA L. McCARTHY v. Walmart Inc.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted December 20, 2023 *
Decided December 20, 2023
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
No. 23-1695
ANGELA L. McCARTHY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WALMART INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin.
No. 21-cv-194-wmc
William M. Conley,
Judge.
O R D E R
Angela McCarthy appeals the dismissal of her disability discrimination case
against her former employer, Walmart. The district judge dismissed McCarthy’s case
with prejudice for failure to prosecute when—even after multiple warnings—she failed
to schedule or appear for her deposition. Because McCarthy does not challenge this
rationale for the adverse judgment, we dismiss her appeal.
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the appeal is
frivolous. FED. R. A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(A).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 23-1695 Page 2
McCarthy sued Walmart, alleging that her supervisors mistreated her because of
her disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a).
The district court’s April 2022 scheduling order set a discovery deadline of April 21,
2023. Walmart’s lawyers then served McCarthy with a notice of deposition for
September 20, 2022, and they sent four reminders in advance of the date. McCarthy did
not appear. After attempts to reschedule the deposition failed, Walmart moved to
compel McCarthy to attend a deposition or, alternatively, to sanction her by dismissing
the case.
The district judge gave McCarthy four more chances to cooperate and, each time,
explained her discovery obligations and warned that a failure to comply would result in
dismissal of her case with prejudice. In a series of filings, McCarthy explained that she
wished to settle the case and offered a variety of reasons why she had not been or could
not yet be deposed. After months without progress, the judge set a final deadline of
March 13, 2023, for the deposition. Days before that deadline, McCarthy—for the first
time—stated a willingness to appear for a deposition “anytime” but did not show that
she had done anything to help schedule one. When the deadline passed, the district
judge dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute under FED. R. C IV. P.
41(b), citing McCarthy’s persistent noncompliance with orders. The judge later denied
McCarthy’s request to reopen the case because she gave “no reasonable justification for
her previous disregard of this court’s orders” and no basis for vacating the judgment.
On appeal, McCarthy does not challenge the district judge’s reasons for
dismissing her suit or even mention the proceedings in the district court. Rather, she
repeats the allegations in her complaint and discusses her desire to settle the case. We
understand she is trying to litigate her discrimination claim without an attorney, but
this does not excuse her from the requirement that appellate briefs contain an argument
challenging the district court’s reason for dismissal and support for that argument.
See FED. R. A PP. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001).
Because “[t]he purpose of an appeal is to evaluate the reasoning and result reached by
the district court,” Wonsey v. City of Chicago, 940 F.3d 394, 398 (7th Cir. 2019), the appeal
must be dismissed if the appellant’s brief lacks any “articulable basis for disturbing the
district court’s judgment.” Anderson, 241 F.3d at 545–46.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --