David J. McNamara v. L. Edward Stengel

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted February 24, 2026*
Decided February 25, 2026
Before
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Chief Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
No. 25-2112
DAVID J. MCNAMARA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
L. EDWARD STENGEL, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
No. 25-cv-0579-bhl
Brett H. Ludwig,
Judge.
* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 25-2112 Page 2
O R D E R
David McNamara appeals the judgment dismissing his civil-rights suit for failure
to state a claim. Because McNamara does not present any ground for reversal, we
dismiss this appeal.
In 2025, McNamara sued current and former officials of Wisconsin (two judges
who adjudicated proceedings involving him, a prosecuting attorney who prosecuted
him, two state child-support employees who had telephone conversations with him in
the mid-1990s, and a former Wisconsin Governor and Attorney General) for allegedly
unfair court proceedings arising from his failure to make child-support payments.
See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court screened his operative complaint, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B), and dismissed it for failure to state a claim. The court explained that
McNamara’s claims against the judges and prosecutor were barred by absolute
immunity; that his claims against the remaining defendants for conduct that allegedly
occurred in the 1990s were barred by the six-year statute of limitations then in effect,
see W IS . S TAT. § 893.53 (1980) (amended 2018); that any claims concerning his prior
convictions or back payment were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87
(1994); and that any claims concerning his ongoing criminal proceedings were subject to
abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43–45 (1971).
On appeal, McNamara recites the facts of his child-support proceedings and the
circumstances of his alleged disability, but he does not engage with the district court’s
decision that his complaint failed to state a claim. We are mindful of McNamara’s pro se
status, but he still must comply with Rule 28(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure and include an argument explaining why the district court’s decision was
incorrect. See Sullers v. Int’l Union Elevator Constructors, Local 2, 141 F.4th 890, 895–96
(7th Cir. 2025); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545–46 (7th Cir. 2001). Because
McNamara does not develop an argument contesting the district court’s rationale, we
dismiss the appeal.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --