NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 June 23, 2009* Decided June 23, 2009 Before RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge No. 09‐1570 Appeal from the United States District NESER EM NEHEH ALI, Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Plaintiff‐Appellant, Eastern Division.

v. No. 08 C 6713 CHICAGO BANCORP, INC., et. al, Matthew F. Kennelly, Defendants‐Appellees. Judge.

O R D E R Neser Em Neheh Ali sued Bancorp and other defendants for what appear to be commercial and contractual claims. His complaint is incoherent and contains no discernable claims, though Ali labels himself and the defendants as “vessels” in an attempt

* The defendants were not served with process in district court and are not participating in this appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the appellant’s brief and the record. See FED R. APP P. 34(a)(2).

No. 09‐1570 Page 2 to invoke the admiralty jurisdiction of federal court. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Ali’s appellate brief is similarly incomprehensible. A litigant in this court must “supply an argument consisting of more than a generalized assertion of error, with citations to supporting authority.” FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9)(A); see Haxhiu v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 685, 691 (7th Cir. 2008). And although we construe pro se filings liberally, even litigants proceeding without the benefit of counsel must articulate some reason for disturbing the district court’s judgment. See Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). Ali does not challenge the district court’s reasoning. In fact, it is impossible to discern any argument at all.

DISMISSED.