UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ NASRULLA KHAN, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. No. 17-4137 (D.C. No. 1:17-CV-00038-DN) (D. Utah)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before BACHARACH , McKAY , and BALDOCK , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Nasrulla Khan, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a cl aim upon which relief may be granted. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. Mr. Khan’s complaint sought relief unde r 28 U.S.C. § 1346, which permits civil actions against the United States “for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or om ission of any employee of the Government while acti ng within the scope of his o ffice or employment . . . .”

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### April 11, 2018
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 He alleged that employees of the Federal Bureau of Inve stigation (FBI) wrote false and misleading reports about him, the FB I has not corrected or expunged those reports, and “the FBI has refused to or fa iled to fairly and thoroughly investigate [his] complaints.” R. at 16. For his alleged injury, he asserted that he has “not been able to live a happy life with the knowledge that all of the false and misleading FBI Reports and FBI records, and other such federal records and privileged records concerning me are in existence.” Id

. A magistrate judge initially screened the complaint prio r to it being served and determined it should be dismissed for failur e to state a claim on which relief could be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). In her Report and Recommendation, the magistrate judge explained that, even accepting Mr. Khan’s complaint as true, it failed to provide sufficient fa cts that would give rise to a personal injury claim. The magistrate judge further expl ained that amending the complaint would be futile, and recommended that the district c ourt dismiss the complaint. Mr. Khan then filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation and attached a proposed amended complaint. The district c ourt considered Mr. Khan’s submissions, but it determined that th e objection and proposed amended complaint failed to remedy the defici encies identified in the Re port and Recommendation. Because the proposed amended complaint sti ll failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted, the di strict court adopted the Report and Recommendation and dismissed the action with prejudi ce. Mr. Khan now appeals.3 We review the district c ourt’s decision de novo. Kay v. Bemis , 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007). In considering whet her a complaint states a claim on which relief could be granted, “we look fo r plausibility in the complaint.” Id . at 1218 (internal quotation marks and brackets omi tted). “In particular, we look to the specific allegations in the complaint to de termine whether they plausibly support a legal claim for relief.” Id . (internal quotation marks omit ted). In doing so, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s instruction that “[f]actual allegati ons [in a complaint] must be enough to raise a right to relief above the sp eculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). We have reviewed Mr. Khan’s extensive list of proposed erro rs and his related arguments, but we agree with the district court that neither Mr. Khan’s initial complaint nor his proposed amended complain t state a claim on which relief could be granted. 1 Accordingly, we affirm the distri ct court’s judgment. We also deny Mr. Khan’s motion to supplement the record on appeal.

Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge

1 As the district court did, we liberally construe Mr. Khan’s pro se complaints. See Kay , 500 F.3d at 1218.