With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding that arguments not raised in district court are waived
B: holding that arguments not presented to the district court in response to a motion for summary judgment are waived
C: holding court will not read between the lines in determining what grounds are presented to the trial court in motion for summary judgment
D: holding that arguments not raised before the trial court are waived
B.