MICHAEL BRAUN and JENNIFER SAMUELS v. Matthew Termaat

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted February 26, 2024*
Decided March 1, 2024
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
No. 23-2484
MICHAEL BRAUN and
JENNIFER SAMUELS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
MATTHEW TERMAAT, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the
United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin.
No. 23-CV-301-JPS
J.P. Stadtmueller,
Judge.
O R D E R
Michael Braun and Jennifer Samuels brought a sprawling civil-rights suit against
a wide range of defendants in Walworth County, Wisconsin (police officers, police
departments, municipalities, a state-court judge, and the county itself), alleging
corruption in connection with the seizure of their horses, a criminal proceeding
involving their son, and a search and seizure that occurred at their home. Iterations of
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the appeal is
frivolous. 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 23-2484 Page 2
their complaint were dismissed at screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted or failure to properly allege subject-
matter jurisdiction. Ultimately, the district judge, adopting a magistrate judge’s report
and recommendation, dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
On appeal Braun and Samuels do not engage the judge’s reasons for dismissing
their suit and instead rehash the allegations in their complaint, adding accusations of
corruption against the federal judges here. We understand that Braun and Samuels are
litigating their claims without an attorney, but that does not excuse them from the
requirement that their brief on appeal contain an argument challenging the judge’s
reason for dismissal with citations to supporting authority. See F ED. R. A PP .
P. 28(a)(8)(A); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). From their brief we
discern no basis to disturb the district court’s judgment.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --