Bryon K. Champ v. Shirley Forcum

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted September 2, 2025*
Decided September 3, 2025
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 23-3023
BRYON K. CHAMP,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SHIRLEY FORCUM, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
No. 3:19-CV-345-MAB
Mark A. Beatty,
Magistrate Judge.
O R D E R
Bryon Champ, formerly confined at a mental health facility, challenges the
summary judgment order rejecting his claim that the facility’s staff retaliated against
him for filing lawsuits and grievances. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We affirm.
This suit arises out of Champ’s involuntary confinement as a pretrial detainee at
Chester Medical Health Center in 2018. He asserted that Chester’s staff intentionally lost
* 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).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 23-3023 Page 2
his legal materials and personal possessions in retaliation for (1) prior lawsuits he had
filed against officials at the Winnebago County Jail and (2) administrative grievances he
had filed against the facility’s staff. A magistrate judge, presiding with the parties’
consent, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), recruited counsel to represent Champ and later entered
summary judgment for the defendants. As the judge explained, Champ did not present
any evidence that some defendants were personally involved in the loss of his
possessions, and no jury could find that the remaining defendant—therapist Carri
Morris—had acted with retaliatory intent. The undisputed evidence, the judge said,
showed that Morris followed Chester’s standard procedures when she filled out the
authorization form to have Champ’s personal property sent to his next location.
Champ, now proceeding pro se, rehashes the arguments that he made in his
summary-judgment response and does not develop any challenge to the district court’s
ruling. See FED. R. A PP . P. 28(a)(8); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir.
2001). We have reviewed the record and affirm for substantially the same reasons stated
by the district court.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --