NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 December 8, 2011*
Decided December 8, 2011
Before
JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
No. 11‐1973
VASSIL M. MARINOV, Appeal from the United States District
Plaintiff‐Appellant, Court for the Northern District of Indiana,
Hammond Division.
v. No. 4:07cv54
TRUSTEES OF PURDUE Jon E. DeGuilio,
UNIVERSITY, and ALYSA Judge.
CHRISTMAS ROLLACK,
Defendants‐Appellees.
O R D E R
Vassil Marinov, a Bulgarian who used to do custodial work at Purdue University,
sued the university and one of its personnel administrators for discrimination under the
Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12112, and Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e‐2(a)(1),
2000e‐3(a). Marinov could not be around certain cleaning chemicals because they made him
*
After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is
unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP. P.
34(a)(2)(C).
No. 11‐1973 Page 2
sick. He claimed that Purdue failed to accommodate this disability, denied him other
opportunities because he was Bulgarian, and then fired him in retaliation for a complaint he
filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The district court granted
summary judgment for the defendants on all claims, determining that Purdue was entitled
to sovereign immunity from Marinov’s ADA claim; that Marinov could not establish a
prima facie case of national origin discrimination, or alternatively that Purdue’s reasons for
its personnel actions were pretextual; and that Marinov failed to establish a retaliation claim
because he could not show a causal connection between his filing of the EEOC complaint
and his termination.
On appeal Marinov, now proceeding pro se, maintains that his discharge was
improper, but he does not identify any specific error made by the district court or develop
an argument supported by citations to legal authority or the record. See FED. R. APP. P.
28(a)(9); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). Although we will construe a
pro se litigant’s brief liberally, we will not craft a litigant’s arguments or perform legal
research for him. See Anderson, 241 F.3d at 545–46.
DISMISSED.