Maurice Davis v. JEWISH VOCATIONAL SERVICE and ILLINOIS STATE POLICE

* 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 FED. R. A PP. P.
34(a)(2)(C).
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted February 9, 2011 *
Decided February 9, 2011
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge
MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
No. 10‐1834
MAURICE DAVIS,
Plaintiff‐Appellant,
v.
JEWISH VOCATIONAL SERVICE and
ILLINOIS STATE POLICE,
Defendants‐Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
No. 07 C 4735
Matthew F. Kennelly,
Judge.
O R D E R
Maurice Davis, who is black and suffers from a traumatic brain injury, sued Jewish
Vocational Service and the Illinois State Police for race discrimination after he was removed
from his placement as a janitor with the ISP. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e‐2(a)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
He also asserted a claim against both agencies for casting him in a false light, based on the
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 10‐1834 Page 2
ISP’s report to JVS that he is a felon, and sued the ISP for defamation and tortious
interference with his employment contract. In a thorough order, the district court granted
summary judgment on all claims for the defendants.
Proceeding pro se on appeal, Davis has submitted as his brief a medley of loose
documents, the body of which amounts to a single paragraph—a purported statement of
facts. He baldly asserts in his submission that he was defamed and falsely accused of being
a felon, but nowhere does he develop any meaningful legal argument, with appropriate
references to the record, as to why the district court erred in granting summary judgment.
See FED. R. A PP. P. 28(a)(9)(A); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). We
will construe a pro se litigant’s brief liberally, but we cannot construct arguments where
there are none. Anderson, 241 F.3d at 545‐46; see Fednav Int’l Ltd. v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 624 F.3d
834, 842 (7th Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --