Judson Hoover v. Dennis Reagle

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted December 22, 2025*
Decided January 6, 2026
Before
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Chief Judge
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
No. 24-2957
JUDSON HOOVER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DENNIS REAGLE, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, Terre Haute Division.
No. 2:23-cv-00510-JPH-MJD
James Patrick Hanlon,
Judge.
O R D E R
Judson Hoover, an Indiana prisoner, appeals the judgment dismissing his civil
rights complaint against three prison officials. Because Hoover failed to show cause
why his complaint should not have been dismissed, we affirm.
* The appellees were not served with process and are not participating in this appeal. After
examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we have concluded that the case is appropriate for
summary disposition. See F ED . R. APP . P. 34(a)(2).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 24-2957 Page 2
Hoover sued three officials at the Pendleton Correctional Facility in Pendleton,
Indiana, for depriving him of his personal property after his transfer from Wabash
Valley Correctional Facility in Carlisle, Indiana. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court
screened Hoover’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismissed it for failure to
state a claim. The court explained that the mere loss of Hoover’s property did not state a
constitutional claim and that Hoover was not owed any process beyond that provided
in the Indiana Tort Claims Act. See I ND. C ODE § 34-13-3-7. The court then gave Hoover
two additional months to show cause why his suit should not be dismissed.
Hoover did not respond to the court’s directive, and the district court dismissed
the complaint for failure to state a claim.
On appeal, Hoover does not contest the correctness of the district court’s
decision, nor does he provide any case law or legal argument that would cast doubt on
the ruling. Although we construe pro se briefs liberally, an appellate brief must contain
a discernible argument challenging the district court’s reason for dismissal and support
for that argument. See F ED. R. A PP . P. 28(a)(8)(A); Atkins v. Gilbert, 52 F.4th 359, 361
(7th Cir. 2022).
To the extent Hoover challenges the district court’s denial of three requests he
made for the assistance of counsel, we see no error. The court properly dismissed
Hoover’s first motion because he did not show that he tried to find counsel on his own
or that he was precluded from doing so. Thomas v. Anderson, 912 F.3d 971, 978 (7th Cir.
2018). Although the court did not address Hoover’s second and third motions (which
did not elaborate on why he believed he could not litigate the case on his own), the
court was entitled to use available information and its own experience to assess the
possible merits of the case and assign priority accordingly. McCaa v. Hamilton, 959 F.3d
842, 845 (7th Cir. 2020); see Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 658–59 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc).
We have considered Hoover’s other arguments, and none has merit.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --