*1 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 May ^[*] Decided

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge No. Appeal United States District

WILLIE HENDERSON, Court Central District Illinois. Plaintiff Appellant v .

NAGESWARARAO VALLABHANENI, Sue E. Myerscough, Judge .

Defendant Appellee . O R D E R

Willie civil detainee at Treatment Detention Facility Illinois’s Sexually Violent Persons Act, ILCS 207/40. asserts Nageswararao Vallabhaneni, psychiatrist, deliberately indifferent *2 ‐ his serious medical needs because he prescribed him a psychotropic drug (Lamictal) in that, Henderson believes, was not necessary. The granted summary judgment for Dr. Vallabhaneni because the undisputed medical evidence establishes that drug was reasonably For reason, affirm.

Henderson did not Dr. summary judgment motion, so take its statement of as admitted. Gerhartz Richert 2015) (citing Flynn Sandahl 1995)). Henderson was committed in and been diagnosed with anxiety, disorder, schizoaffective and depression. psychiatrist first prescribed him Lamictal in for his mood and Henderson consented medication. The prescription, from which he reported no side effects, was several times before Henderson stopped taking drug in 2011. believes that as of he no longer needed psychiatric medication and not recall being prescribed any. But Dr. Vallabhaneni prescribed antidepressant Henderson for his increased stress from August until January after April Henderson increased anxiety in advance of his conditional release hearing, Dr. Vallabhaneni prescribed Lamictal Henderson’s swings.

Henderson believes that Dr. Vallabhaneni Lamictal in for medical reasons, but because assistant state’s attorney judge involved his conditional release proceedings asked that be medicated before his release. But nothing plan for conditional release or circuit court’s order granting conditional release that Henderson placed psychiatric medication. also believes that causes adverse effects, including dreams, which thinks reason judge revoked his conditional release. But state’s petition for relied other problems well: unauthorized possession photographs of children his inappropriate contact neighbor.

After Dr. Vallabhaneni filed unopposed motion for summary judgment, moved sanctions because Dr. Vallabhaneni had produced state transcript from proceedings. The denied sanctions Dr. Vallabhaneni wasn’t possession transcripts, requested transcripts directly Cook County courts but not. It also granted Vallabhaneni. It first reasoned presented evidence suggesting aware prescribing pose substantial risk harm Henderson. *3 16 3416 3 See Farmer v. Brennan , U.S. (1994); Rasho v. Elyea , F.3d (7th Cir. 2017). To contrary, court noted, to treat doctor knew received four years beginning caused by ongoing effects. Accordingly, concluded, treatment

On appeal, does develop any challenge reasoning, nor cite authority, do. 28(a)(8). affirm ground alone. See Long v. Teachers’ Ret. Sys. Of Ill. , (7th Cir. 2009). failure constitutes additional ground forfeiture. Nichols Michigan City Plant Planning Dep’t 2014). Regardless reviewed record, affirm substantially reasons stated by To extent wishes challenge theory dreams were caused by Lamictal, panel already advised such challenges must made habeas corpus proceeding, Bryant F. App’x 303–04 2015).

AFFIRMED.

[*] agreed decide case without oral argument briefs record adequately present arguments, oral argument significantly aid 34(a)(2)(C).