Court Error Motion for Summary Affirmance.

Byline: Derek Hawkins

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Tim Jon Semmerling v. Cheryl T. Bormann, et al.,

Case No.: 19-3211

Officials: BRENNAN, Circuit Judge (in chambers).

Focus: Court Error Motion for Summary Affirmance

Appellee the United States asks this court to summarily affirm the district court's dismissal of appellant Tim Jon Semmerling's complaint because his appellate brief does not assert any error in the district court's decision.

Semmerling worked as a contractor for the U.S. Military Commissions Defense Organization as part of the legal team for a person charged as an al-Qaeda enemy combatant. Semmerling, who is gay, disclosed his sexuality to the lead attorney of that team, and Semmerling alleges that, despite promising secrecy, that attorney disclosed his sexuality to the client and told the client that Semmerling was infatuated with the client and was pursuing that interest.

Semmerling sued the lead attorney for state-law torts of defamation, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and he sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2674, for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Both defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, FED.R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), and the district court granted their motions. Semmerling has appealed and by counsel submitted a seven-page brief that is light on factual details and legal analysis. The United States moves for summary affirmance. It highlights the sparseness of Semmerling's brief and asserts that summary affirmance is appropriate here because "[s]ummary affirmance may be in order when the arguments in the opening brief are incomprehensible or completely insubstantial." United States v. Fortner, 455 F.3d 752, 754 (7th Cir. 2006)...