Douglas Middleton v. Kimberly Russell

* 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 June 2, 2005*
Decided June 2, 2005
Before
Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge
Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge
Nos. 04-1648 & 04-2688
DOUGLAS MIDDLETON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KIMBERLY RUSSELL et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeals from the United States
District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin
No. 02-C-0882
Charles N. Clevert, Jr.,
Judge.
O R D E R
Wisconsin inmate Douglas Middleton suffers from phlebitis, a chronic disease
resulting in painful inflammation of leg or arm veins. Unhappy with the treatment
he received at Racine Correctional Institution, he filed this lawsuit against several
medical practitioners and prison officials, alleging deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Middleton claimed,
among other things, that RCI had changed his medications in order to cut costs and
bought him the wrong kind of support stockings. The district court granted the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding that RCI had not disregarded
Middleton’s medical needs, but had in fact taken “exceptional steps” to address
UNPUBLISHED ORDER
Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53

-- 1 of 2 --

Nos. 04-1648 & 04-2688 Page 2
them. Accordingly, Middleton could not establish the mental state necessary to
prove deliberate indifference.
On appeal Middleton does not present any specific legal challenge to the
district court’s conclusions, but merely asserts that he did not receive appropriate
medical treatment and that the district court mishandled his case. Middleton’s
vague and unfocused presentation lacks citations to the record and accordingly does
not comply with Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9), which requires even pro se litigants to
submit a brief containing cognizable arguments with supporting citations. See
Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we must
dismiss his appeal.
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --