Adrian M. Lockridge v. MADISON METROPOLITAN SCHOOL DISTRICT and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted June 20, 2025*
Decided June 23, 2025
Before
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge
No. 24-3189
ADRIAN M. LOCKRIDGE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MADISON METROPOLITAN SCHOOL
DISTRICT and UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin.
No. 24-cv-256-jdp
James D. Peterson,
Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Adrian Lockridge sued the Madison Metropolitan School District and the
Department of Education, alleging violations of his rights under the Individuals with
* The appellees were not served with process and are not participating in this
appeal. We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the brief 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 24-3189 Page 2
Disabilities Education Act, Rehabilitation Act, and other federal and state laws. He
claimed that the school district inadequately supported and educated his daughter, who
was diagnosed with anxiety and depression, and that the Department of Education
failed to enforce his rights. The district court screened the complaint, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B); noted that it was “difficult to decipher” and “excessively long and full of
argumentative, disorganized, and immaterial allegations”; allowed Lockridge to amend
his complaint to clarify his allegations; and warned him that his failure to comply with
the order could result in dismissal of the case. Lockridge filed an amended complaint
that largely mirrored the original complaint, so the district court dismissed it for failure
to state a claim.
Lockridge appeals but his appellate brief only reprises the allegations in his
amended complaint. He does not engage with the district court’s rationale or cite any
case 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
reasoning and support for that argument. See F ED. R. A PP . P. 28; Anderson v. Hardman,
241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). Because an appeal is meant to evaluate the district
court’s decision, see Wonsey v. City of Chicago, 940 F.3d 394, 398 (7th Cir. 2019), it must be
dismissed if the appellant’s brief lacks any basis to disturb the judgment, see Anderson,
241 F.3d at 545.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --