L.c. Cain v. Mark Rogers

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted February 10, 2026*
Decided February 13, 2026
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 25-2100
L.C. CAIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MARK ROGERS, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
No. 24-cv-1173-pp
Pamela Pepper,
Chief Judge.
O R D E R
L.C. Cain settled a workers’ compensation claim in 1991 with his former
employer, Milwaukee County. In 2022, Cain attempted to reopen the settlement by
filing a state administrative appeal, which was dismissed as untimely. Cain then sued
the County, the administrative law judge who presided over his state administrative
* Appellee Milwaukee County was not served with process and is not
participating in this appeal. 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 25-2100 Page 2
appeal, the lawyer who represented Cain in his workers’ compensation proceedings,
and the insurance company that issued his annuity as part of the settlement, alleging
that the defendants violated his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court
dismissed Cain’s claims against the ALJ because she had absolute judicial immunity,
the County because the suit was brought beyond the statute of limitations, and the
remaining defendants because they were not state actors.
On appeal, Cain does not argue that the district judge’s decision was incorrect,
nor does he provide any case law or legal argument that would cast doubt on the
ruling. But even pro se plaintiffs must comply with Rule 28 of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure, which requires that the appellant provide his “contentions and
the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which
[he] relies.” F ED. R. A PP . P. 28(a)(8)(A); see Greenbank v. Great Am. Assurance Co., 47 F.4th
618, 629 (7th Cir. 2022). Because Cain’s appellate filing presents no argument contesting
the district judge’s reasoning, we dismiss the appeal. See Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d
544, 545–46 (7th Cir. 2001).
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --