Loren Longard v. City of Green Bay, et. al.

* After an examination of 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 Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted April 26, 2005*
Decided April 27, 2005
Before
Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge
Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge
Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
No. 04-4024
LOREN LONGARD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF GREEN BAY, et. al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin
No. 03-C-544
William E. Callahan, Jr.,
Magistrate Judge.
O R D E R
Loren Longard sued the City of Green Bay, Wisconsin, claiming that his due
process rights were violated when his public vehicle licenses were revoked for
deliberately attempting to circumvent the city’s insurance requirements for taxis.
The district court granted summary judgment for the city, finding that Longard
failed to exhaust administrative remedies, that the post-deprivation procedures he
was afforded “satisfied due process,” and that no other constitutional rights were
violated.
UNPUBLISHED ORDER
Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-4024 Page 2
Appealing pro se, Longard fails to set forth any argument challenging the
basis of the district court’s decision. Instead he filed a letter relating his hardship,
and inserted handwritten comments between the lines and in the margins of a copy
of the district court’s decision, asserting blanket denials of wrongdoing and
charging that his rights had been violated. Although we construe pro se filings
liberally, the appellant must point to some specific error in law or fact on the part of
the district court. Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001).
Because Longard failed to comply with Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9), he has forfeited
appellate review of the district court’s decision. Voelker v. Porsche Cars of North
America, Inc., 353 F.3d 516, 528 (7th Cir. 2003). This appeal is DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --