Raymond Echevarria v. Darrin Jackson

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 June 22, 2026 Before KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge No. 25-1271 RAYMOND E. ECHEVARRIA, Appeal from the United States District Plaintiff-Appellant, Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. v. No. 1:20-cv-05271 DARRIN JACKSON, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Lashonda A. Hunt, Judge.

ORDER The opinion of the court issued on June 16, 2026, is amended as follows: In footnote 10, lines 1 and 2, “both parties have” is stricken and replaced with “Mr. Echevarria has.” In line 4, “their briefs. Both parties” is stricken and replaced with “his brief. He has.” In line 5, “28(b)” is stricken. The corrected footnote should read: While it does not form the basis of our ruling, we note that Mr. Echevarria has failed to fully comply with the briefing requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 by omitting required components from his brief.

He has failed to include a Summary of Argument section as required. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(7). Additionally, Mr. Echevarria failed to provide the court with an appendix containing the relevant docket entries from the district No. 25-1271 Page 2 court—omitting even a copy of the district court decision being appealed.

Fed. R. App. 30(a)(1). “Noncompliance with appellate rules wastes time and resources and frustrates the review process.” McCurry v. Kenco Logistics Servs., LLC, 942 F.3d 783, 791 (7th Cir. 2019). To that end, we must “insist on meticulous compliance with rules sensibly designed to make appellate briefs as valuable an aid to the decisional process as they can be.”

Avitia v. Metro. Club of Chi., Inc., 49 F.3d 1219, 1224 (7th Cir. 1995). Future appellants, appellees, and counsel would be wise to keep this in mind in all future appeals.