Chaudhry, Miranda v. Ford Motor Company , 157 F. App'x 927 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED ORDER
Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted December 13, 2005*
Decided December 14, 2005
Before
Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge
Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
No. 05-2369
MIRANDA D. CHAUDHRY, Appeal from the United States District
Plaintiff-Appellant, Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division
v.
No. 04 C 5669
FORD MOTOR COMPANY and
NATALIE DAHRINGER, Matthew F. Kennelly,
Defendants-Appellees. Judge.
ORDER
Miranda Chaudhry sued her former employer, Ford Motor Company, for
employment discrimination in 2003. The parties participated in a settlement
conference before a magistrate judge and reached a binding settlement agreement.
The parties signed the agreement, but within days Chaudhry objected in writing to
the agreement and later filed a motion contesting its validity. The district judge
*
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).
No. 05-2369 Page 2
concluded that Chaudhry had voluntarily settled the claims, overruled Chaudhry’s
objection, and denied the motions to invalidate the settlement agreement.
Chaudhry promptly filed another suit in federal court against Ford Motor
Company and Natalie Dahringer, a Ford human resources representative, alleging
sex discrimination, constructive discharge, and retaliation. The district judge
construed Chaudhry’s claims to be the same as the ones she brought in the previous
action and thus barred because they were resolved by the settlement agreement.
The court granted Ford’s motion for summary judgment.
Appealing pro se, Chaudhry fails to present any relevant legal argument or
otherwise challenge the district court’s conclusions in her second suit. Instead she
devotes most of her brief to describing the first proceeding; she reproduces verbatim
the text of the settlement agreement, the docket sheet, her complaint, court orders,
and portions of transcripts from her appearances before the magistrate judge. Even
a pro se litigant like Chaudhry must identify a basis for overturning the district
court’s judgment and support her argument with citations to the record and
relevant legal authority. See Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir.
2001); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9). Chaudhry has provided no cognizable argument
and, accordingly, her appeal is DISMISSED.