beyond outlining the method of proof. Instead, Garza proceeds to discuss his retaliation claim using a pretext analysis. (See PL’s Resp. Br. at 2-9.) Garza either expects this court to parse the record on his behalf for evidence of discriminatory intent, or he concedes that he lacks evidence to support a race or national origin discrimination claim. The court may treat Garza’s failure to delineate his discrimination argument as a waiver of his discrimination claim. See Palmer v. Marion Cnty., 327 F.3d 588, 597-98 (7th Cir.2003) (finding that plaintiff abandoned his negligence claim because he did not delineate the claim in his district court brief in opposition to summary judgment or his appellate brief); Laborers’ Int’l Union of N. Am. v. Caruso, 197 F.3d 1195, 1197 (7th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Second, even if this court were inclined to
holding that arguments not raised before the trial court are waived holding court will not read between the lines in determining what grounds are presented to the trial court in motion for summary judgment holding that arguments not raised in district court are waived holding that arguments not presented to the district court in response to a motion for summary judgment are waived holding that arguments not raised in opposition to a motion for summary judgment are waived