Brian K. Smith v. Ford Motor Company

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted February 24, 2025*
Decided February 24, 2025
Before
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 24-2858
BRIAN K. SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 24 C 75
Matthew F. Kennelly,
Judge.
O R D E R
Brian Smith appeals the dismissal of his employment-discrimination suit against
his employer, Ford Motor Company. The district court dismissed the suit based on
* The appellee 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 24-2858 Page 2
Smith’s failure to state a plausible claim for relief. Because he does not contest the
district court’s reasoning, we dismiss the appeal.
On a court-provided form, Smith marked boxes claiming that Ford discriminated
against him based on his race and disability. He attached over 60 pages of documents
but did not explain how they related to his claim. The district court, unable to discern
the nature of Smith’s allegations, dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim but
granted him leave to amend. Smith responded with a flurry of filings, including one
that the court construed as an amended complaint. The court observed that Smith had
“not come anywhere close to complying” with its earlier directive, advised him what he
needed to do to cure the deficiencies, and gave him a second chance to amend.
In the next version of his complaint, Smith explained that he was suing Ford
under the Illinois Whistleblower Act. 740 ILCS 174/1. The court again dismissed the
complaint, stating that Smith failed to allege how his rights were violated, by whom, or
when. The court noted that some documents in his earlier filings were untimely because
they concerned incidents from nearly 10 years ago, and regardless, Smith failed to
explain how the documents pointed to any wrongdoing. The court gave Smith a third
opportunity to amend, but he submitted only a letter that he said showed “evidence of
harassment.” The court then recruited counsel to make sense of Smith’s claims. After
counsel reported back that Smith lacked any plausible federal claim, the district court
dismissed the case with prejudice.
On appeal, Smith 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); 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 Chi., 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 --