ORDER
Doris Queen Lavender sued the UIC College of Dentistry and six dentists for violating her civil rights in fantastical ways, among them allegedly placing a miniature bomb in one of her teeth, electrocuting her “execution style,” and wiretapping her. When she applied to proceed in forma pauperis in the district court, the court dismissed the lawsuit because her allegations were too speculative to state a claim on which relief could be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
On appeal Lavender repeats the same fantastical allegations but does not provide a reasoned basis for disturbing the district court’s conclusion that her allegations did not state a claim. She therefore has not complied with Rule 28(a)(8) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which requires that an appellate brief contain an argument and reasoning to support it, and which even pro se litigants must follow. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2001).
DISMISSED.