Saladino v. Redisi Family Partnership

Seventh Circuit

Saladino v. Redisi Family Partnership

120 F. App'x 645

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedFebruary 1, 2005

DocketNo. 04-3395

StatusPublished

This text of 120 F. App'x 645 (Saladino v. Redisi Family Partnership) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Saladino v. Redisi Family Partnership, 120 F. App'x 645 (7th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

In August 2002 Frank Saladino filed a complaint claiming that the Redisi Family Partnership and various individuals engaged in a pattern of frauds dating back to 1990 in violation of the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on the four-year statute of limitations for civil RICO claims, see Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff and Assocs., 483 U.S. 143, 156, 107 S.Ct. 2759, 97 L.Ed.2d 121 (1987); McCool v. Strata Oil Co., 972 F.2d 1452, 1464-65 (7th Cir.1992).

Proceeding pro se on appeal, Saladino fails to set forth any argument challenging the decision of the district court. His opening brief goes on at length about the facts and legal theories underlying his RICO claim, but nowhere does it address the relevant statute of limitations or contest the district court’s conclusion that his claim was untimely. Although Saladino at least mentions the statute of limitations in his reply brief, arguments not made in an opening brief are waived. Lin v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 748, 750 (7th Cir.2004). Though we construe pro se filings liberally, we must be able to discern cogent arguments in any appellate brief. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir.2001). We therefore see no basis for upsetting the district court’s dismissal.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

In August 2002 Frank Saladino filed a complaint claiming that the Redisi Family Partnership and various individuals engaged in a pattern of frauds dating back to 1990 in violation of the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on the four-year statute of limitations for civil RICO claims, see Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff and Assocs., 483 U.S. 143, 156, 107 S.Ct. 2759, 97 L.Ed.2d 121 (1987); McCool v. Strata Oil Co., 972 F.2d 1452, 1464-65 (7th Cir.1992).

Proceeding pro se on appeal, Saladino fails to set forth any argument challenging the decision of the district court. His opening brief goes on at length about the facts and legal theories underlying his RICO claim, but nowhere does it address the relevant statute of limitations or contest the district court’s conclusion that his claim was untimely. Although Saladino at least mentions the statute of limitations in his reply brief, arguments not made in an opening brief are waived. Lin v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 748, 750 (7th Cir.2004). Though we construe pro se filings liberally, we must be able to discern cogent arguments in any appellate brief. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir.2001). We therefore see no basis for upsetting the district court’s dismissal.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 F. App'x 645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saladino-v-redisi-family-partnership-ca7-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack