Catherine A. McLachlan v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE Commissioner of Social Security

* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is
unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See F ED. R. APP. P.
34(a)(2)(A).
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted August 25, 2010 *
Decided August 25, 2010
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge
JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge
DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge
No. 09‐3655
CATHERINE A. MCLACHLAN
Plaintiff‐Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant‐Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
No. 03 C 2297
Martin C. Ashman,
Magistrate Judge.
O R D E R
Catherine McLachlan applied for supplemental security income benefits under Title
XVI of the Social Security Act, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381a, 1382c, claiming that she could not
work because of pain in her left arm and shoulder. The Social Security Administration
denied her application initially and upon reconsideration, and an administrative law judge
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 09‐3655 Page 2
concluded, after a hearing at which both McLachlan and her attorney appeared, that
McLachlan was not disabled. With counsel, she sought judicial review and consented to
proceed before a magistrate judge who, in a lengthy and thorough decision, granted
summary judgment for the Commissioner.
McLachlan is proceeding pro se on appeal and asserts, without any elaboration, that
the ALJ’s decision was not supported by the weight of the evidence. Her brief consists
largely of excerpts of an ALJ’s decision in another matter and a pleading from a different
social security case. The brief does not refer to facts in the record or contain an argument
consisting of more than a generalized assertion of error. Consequently, the appeal warrants
dismissal under FED. R. A PP. P. 28(a)(9)(A). See Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th
Cir. 2001) (even pro se litigants must comply with Rule 28(a)(9)).
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --