NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted June 1, 2015*
Decided June 4, 2015
Before
JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
No. 14‐3782
LARRY ORUTA, Appeal from the United States District
Plaintiff‐Appellant, Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
v.
No. 14 C 7164
CONTINENTAL AIR TRANSPORT,
INC., et al., Thomas M. Durkin,
Defendants‐Appellees. Judge.
O R D E R
Larry Oruta appeals from the dismissal of his civil complaint for failure to state a
claim for relief. We dismiss the appeal.
* The defendants were not served with process in the district court and are not
participating in this appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we
have concluded that the case is appropriate for summary disposition. See FED. R. APP. P.
34(a)(2)(C).
No. 14‐3782 Page 2
Oruta purported to bring a class‐action lawsuit on behalf of himself and one
other, raising disparate allegations in which he alludes to deficiencies in state
proceedings for workers’ compensation, an unlawful arrest, and exposure to asbestos in
county jail. The district court described the complaint as “incomprehensible,” dismissed
it without prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief, and identified other defects
relating to Oruta’s attempt to bring a class action. Oruta amended his complaint,
restyling it as one under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and naming only himself as the plaintiff. The
district court concluded that Oruta had not cured the deficiencies identified in its earlier
order and dismissed the suit with prejudice.
On appeal Oruta contests the district court’s ruling and insists that he rectified the
court’s concerns by dropping his fellow plaintiff and abandoning his attempt to pursue a
class action. Oruta may have fixed those two issues, but he has not articulated any
reason to disturb the district court’s conclusion that the allegations in his amended
complaint do not give rise to any cognizable federal claim. Because Oruta fails to
illuminate how his amended complaint alleges sufficient facts to state a plausible claim
for relief, we are left with nothing to review and thus dismiss the appeal. See FED. R. APP.
P. 28(a)(8)(A); Ball v. City of Indianapolis, 760 F.3d 636, 645 (7th Cir. 2014); Anderson v.
Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001).
APPEAL DISMISSED.