* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** Honorable Wesley E. Brown, Senior District Judge, U nited States District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by design ation. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JUN 29 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

DARREN MALEKZADEH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. HEIDEMAN LAW GROUP PC; RICHARD D. HEIDEMAN; MARIA NICOLINI; THE BONNER SMITH LAW OFFICE,

Defendants-Appellees. No. 98-6463 (D.C. No. 98-CV-599) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before ANDERSON and KELLY , Circuit Judges, and BROWN , ** Senior District Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of-2-

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff Darren Malekzadeh, appearing pro se, appe als from the district court’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of his c omplaint against defendants alleging claims of malpractice, breach of contract, discrimination, conspiracy to discriminate, and RICO violations. We have juri sdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. We review de novo an order dismissing a complaint f or failure to state a claim for relief under Rule 12(b)(6) using the same standard applied by the district court. See Ordinance 59 Ass’n v. United States Dep’t of In terior Secretary , 163 F.3d 1150, 1152 (10th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff’ s pro se pleadings must be construed liberally and held to a less stri ngent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). This means that if the court can reasonabl y read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so despite the plaintiff’s failure to cite proper legal theories o r unfamiliarity with pleading requirements. See Hall v. Bellmon , 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, it is not the proper function of the courtto assume the role of advocate for a pro se litigant. See id . “The broad reading of the plaintiff’s complaint does not relieve the plaintiff of the bur den of alleging sufficient facts-3-

on which a recognized legal claim could be based.” Id . Conclusory allegations without supporting factual averments are insufficie nt to state a claim on which relief can be based. See id . (citing Dunn v. White , 880 F.2d 1188, 1197 (10th Cir. 1989)). Thus, in analyzing the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s complaint the court need accept as true only the well-pleaded facts, as distinguished from conclusory allegations, and view those facts in the light mostfavorable to the nonmoving party. See Maher v. Durango Metals, Inc. , 144 F.3d 1302, 1304 (10th Cir. 1998). We have reviewed the pleadings in this case with th ese standards in mind. After a thorough review of the record, we agree with the district court’s resolution of plaintiff’s arguments and agree that plaintiff has failed to state any legally cognizable claims against defendants. Acco rdingly, we affirm for substantially the reasons expressed by the districtcourt in its orders of October 14, 1998, October 29, 1998 and November 12, 1998. The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. All of the pending motion s are DENIED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. Entered for the Court

Wesley E. Brown Senior District Judge