NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 August 31, 2011*
Decided August 31, 2011
Before
RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
No. 11‐1632
NATHAN GILLIS, Appeal from the United States District
Plaintiff‐Appellant, Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin.
v.
No. 09‐cv‐245‐bbc
RICK RAEMISCH, et al.,
Defendants‐Appellees. Barbara B. Crabb,
Judge.
O R D E R
Nathan Gillis, a Wisconsin inmate, brought this action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983,
claiming that prison officials punished him in retaliation for reporting guard brutality and
acted with deliberate indifference to unconstitutional prison conditions. Gillis later asked
the court to “arrange” an inspection of the prison so he could document certain conditions
for his deliberate‐indifference claim, and the court denied the request. In subsequent filings,
Gillis complained that prison officials set overly severe restrictions on a visit he proposed
*
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. APP. P.
34(a)(2)(C).
No. 11‐1632 Page 2
for an inspector he himself had hired, but a magistrate judge found nothing wrong with the
prison’s handling of the matter. Later, the district court granted summary judgment for the
defendants, and Gillis appeals. We affirm.
Gillis’s brief on appeal rehashes his claims of retaliation and deliberate indifference,
as well as his contention that the district court erroneously “refused” his request for an
inspection. But he barely raises any legal challenge to the court’s decision. See FED. R. APP.
P. 28(a)(9); Anderson v. Hardman,
241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). Generously construing his
brief, we discern one issue. He argues that the court improperly discredited his allegations
by determining that he “failed to submit proposed findings of fact sufficient to put critical
issues into dispute.” Gillis, however, misapprehends the court’s statement. The court was
commenting not on Gillis’s credibility, but merely his failure to produce evidence raising a
genuine dispute over whether his rights were violated, as was his burden at summary
judgment. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(1); McAllister v. Price,
615 F.3d 877, 881 (7th Cir. 2010).
AFFIRMED.
