NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 February 4, 2009*
Decided February 4, 2009
Before
JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge
JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge
DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge
No. 08‐3954
JAMES F. OSTERBUR, Appeal from the United States District
Plaintiff‐Appellant, Court for the Central District of Illinois.
v. No. 08‐CV‐2262
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Michael P. McCuskey,
Defendants‐Appellees. Chief Judge.
O R D E R
James Osterbur filed a complaint in the district court naming as defendants the
United States of America, the State of Illinois, the Governor of Illinois, the President of the
United States, and the Supreme Court of the United States. Osterbur’s 29‐page complaint is
*
The defendants were not served with process in district court and are not
participating in this appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we have
concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the
appellant’s brief and the record. See FED R. APP P. 34(a)(2).
No. 08‐3954 Page 2
completely incoherent and contains no discernable claims, though Osterbur appears to call
for a “tax revolt.” The district court found that the case was frivolous and insubstantial and
therefore dismissed it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Gammon v. GC Servs. Ltd.
P’ship, 27 F.3d 1254, 1256 (7th Cir. 1994) (federal courts lack jurisdiction over claims that are
so insubstantial as to be devoid of merit).
Osterbur’s appellate brief is more of the same. A litigant in this court must “supply
an argument consisting of more than a generalized assertion of error, with citations to
supporting authority.” FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9)(A); see also Haxhiu v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 685,
691 (7th Cir. 2008). And although we construe pro se filings liberally, even litigants
proceeding without the benefit of counsel must articulate some reason for disturbing the
district court’s judgment. See Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001).
Osterbur does not challenge the district court’s reasoning. In fact, it is impossible to discern
any argument at all.
DISMISSED.