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 claim upon which relief may be granted. 

Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 

Mr. Khan’s complaint sought relief under 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 omission of any employee 

of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment . . . .” 

 *

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially 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 doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive 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 Court
2 

He alleged that employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) wrote false 

and misleading reports about him, the FBI has not corrected or expunged those 

reports, and “the FBI has refused to or failed 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 prior to it being served and 

determined it should be dismissed for failure 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 facts that would give rise to a personal injury claim. The 

magistrate judge further explained that amending the complaint would be futile, and 

recommended that the district court dismiss the complaint. 

Mr. Khan then filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation and 

attached a proposed amended complaint. The district court considered Mr. Khan’s 

submissions, but it determined that the objection and proposed amended complaint 

failed to remedy the deficiencies identified in the Report and Recommendation. 

Because the proposed amended complaint still failed to state a claim on which relief 

could be granted, the district court adopted the Report and Recommendation and 

dismissed the action with prejudice. Mr. Khan now appeals. 
3 

We review the district court’s decision de novo. Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 

1217 (10th Cir. 2007). In considering whether a complaint states a claim on which 

relief could be granted, “we look for plausibility in the complaint.” Id. at 1218 

(internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). “In particular, we look to the 

specific allegations in the complaint to determine whether they plausibly support a 

legal claim for relief.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In doing so, we are 

guided by the Supreme Court’s instruction that “[f]actual allegations [in a complaint] 

must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. 

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 

We have reviewed Mr. Khan’s extensive list of proposed errors and his related 

arguments, but we agree with the district court that neither Mr. Khan’s initial 

complaint nor his proposed amended complaint state a claim on which relief could be 

granted.1

 Accordingly, we affirm the district 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.