States of America as a party and REMAND this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this order. 1 . Parrott makes two additional arguments as to why he had no available administrative remedies, but he did not make these arguments to the district court, so they are forfeited. See Perry v. Sullivan, 207 F.3d 379, 383 (7th Cir.2000). 2 . Parrott also argues that the district court's order violates Circuit Rule 50 because the court failed to articulate its reasons for dismissing the government as a defendant. Although the district court, in a single unsupported sentence, dismissed the government as a party, we can discern its rationale so remand on this issue is unnecessary. See Ross Bros. Constr. Co. v. Int’l Steel Servs., Inc., 283 F.3d 867, 872 (7th Cir.2002)
holding that the decision of the appellate court establishes the law of the case and it must be followed by the trial court on remand holding after we found standing following a district courts dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction that the merits will be for the district court to decide on remand holding that although the district court was not required to discuss each of the factors on the record a decision to dismiss stands a better chance on appeal if the appellate court has the benefit of the district courts reasoning holding that appellate court will not remand a case to the district court for a violation of rule 50 if the district courts rationale is apparent from the record holding that the district court had jurisdiction to order restitution of award overturned on appeal even in the absence of a remand from the appellate court