ORDER

William Murray sued Avon Products claiming that he was denied employment because of his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. The district court granted Avon’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that Murray failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination; as noted by the court, Murray offered no evidence that the persons hired to fill the positions he applied for were substantially younger. See Sembos v. Philips Components, 376 F.3d 696, 700 (2004). Proceeding pro se on appeal, Murray fails to set forth any argument challenging the district court’s analysis, and thus we have no basis to overturn the judgment. See Ajayi v. Aramark Bus. Servs., Inc., 336 F.3d 520, 529 (7th Cir. 2003); see also Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9)(A); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). We warn Murray that any further frivolous litigation will subject him to monetary fines and possible bar pursuant to Support Systems Int’l. Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186 (7th Cir. 1995), forbidding his filing of any further legal papers in any federal court within this circuit except for criminal cases or applications for writs of habeas corpus.

AFFIRMED.