Court Opinion

ID: 9901380
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-21 18:01:50.524551+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:31.694045
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-4098      Document: 010110956587        Date Filed: 11/21/2023      Page: 1
                                                                                     FILED
                                                                         United States Court of Appeals
                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                           Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                           November 21, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                             Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                 Clerk of Court
  ROBERT JAMES SWINT,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                            No. 23-4098
                                                      (D.C. No. 2:23-CV-00282-HCN)
  DISH NETWORK; VERIZON                                          (D. Utah)
  WIRELESS; BANK OF AMERICA;
  BEAR MAN PIG CLUB,

        Defendants - Appellees.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before MATHESON, BRISCOE, and EID, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

        Plaintiff Robert James Swint, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s

 dismissal of his civil action. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm

 the district court’s order dismissing this case.

        *
         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 This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
Appellate Case: 23-4098     Document: 010110956587         Date Filed: 11/21/2023      Page: 2

        I.      BACKGROUND

        A. Factual Background

        In a report and recommendation entered by a magistrate judge, which the district

 court adopted, the magistrate judge did not describe Swint’s factual allegations but rather

 noted that the allegations were indecipherable or incoherent. Swint provides the

 following factual summary, quoted verbatim, in the section of his appellate brief form

 intended to serve as a summary of the district court proceedings:

        Dish network is an underground network that the United States
        government is using for trafficking humans, brainwashing subs into
        torpedos, And mind controlling victims into submission, kid spying you
        Name it, working with all branches of gov.

 Aplt. Br. 2.

        B. Procedural History

        Following the magistrate judge’s review of Swint’s amended complaint, the

 magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation, recommending that the district

 court dismiss the action as indecipherable and without a plausible claim for relief. Swint

 filed objections, and the district court overruled the objections and adopted the report and

 recommendation, dismissing Swint’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

 Swint appealed to this court.

        II.     STANDARD OF REVIEW

        We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of an action under 28 U.S.C.

 § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim, applying the same standards we employ to

 review dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Young v. Davis,

                                              2
Appellate Case: 23-4098       Document: 010110956587          Date Filed: 11/21/2023        Page: 3

 554 F.3d 1254, 1256 (10th Cir. 2009). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must

 contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is

 plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.

 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “Threadbare recitals of a cause of action’s

 elements, supported by mere conclusory statements,” are insufficient. Id. at 663 (citing

 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In conducting our review, we accept all well-pleaded facts as

 true, view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and draw all reasonable

 inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. Brooks v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, 985 F.3d 1272,

 1281 (10th Cir. 2021).

        We “can affirm a lower court’s ruling on any grounds adequately supported by the

 record, even grounds not relied upon by the district court.” Safe Streets All. v.

 Hickenlooper, 859 F.3d 865, 879 (10th Cir. 2017) (quoting Elwell v. Byers, 699 F.3d

 1208, 1213 (10th Cir. 2012)). Because Swint appears pro se, we construe his filings

 liberally, but we do not serve as his advocate. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux &

 Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). We may make allowances for failure to cite

 proper legal authority, confusion of legal theories, poor syntax and sentence construction,

 or unfamiliarity with pleading requirements, but we cannot take on the responsibility of

 constructing arguments and searching the record. Id. (citing Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d

 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991)).

                                                3
Appellate Case: 23-4098      Document: 010110956587        Date Filed: 11/21/2023      Page: 4

        III.    DISCUSSION

        In his appellate brief form, Swint responds as follows to the questions in the form

 regarding whether the district court applied the wrong law, incorrectly decided the facts,

 failed to consider important grounds for relief, or for any other reason was wrong:

        I dont think they understood, probably went into shock, the courts Just
        ruled, this is actually illegal from the start And violates my first
        amendment

        Yes, Samuel B. Roberts (Osama B. Laden) Robert S. Mueller Sept 11
        2001 none of these were mentioned Robert Redfield CDC#18 2018,
        Robert S Bell/Murphy DEA Atlanta/Chicago,

        never mentioned it because Its the United States Congress/gov
        underground International Paper: Dish Network there Premier Service 62
        Billion club Verizon 1 plus more

        Yes Because theres no way out plus Im sick of 7 years behind bars on
        100% made up charges since the signing of the patriot act in 2001, I
        WANT A GUARANTEE 100%

 Aplt. Br. 4.

        “Issues will be deemed waived if they are not adequately briefed.” Buhendwa

 v. Reg’l Transp. Dist., 745 F. App’x 297, 298 (10th Cir. 2018) (quoting Garrett, 425

 F.3d at 840). “And an issue is not adequately briefed if the party’s argument is

 ‘incomprehensible.’” Id. (quoting Zander v. Knight Transp., Inc., 688 F. App’x 532,

 533 (10th Cir. 2017)). The only response that is comprehensible, and therefore not

 waived, is Swint’s statement that the district court’s decision was “illegal from the

 start And violates my first amendment.” Aplt. Br. 4. However, Swint provides no

 argument in support of this statement, and we cannot construct arguments on his

                                              4
Appellate Case: 23-4098     Document: 010110956587          Date Filed: 11/21/2023        Page: 5

 behalf. See Garrett, 425 F.3d at 840 (citing Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110). “In short, the

 inadequacies of [Swint’s] brief[] disentitle him to review by this court.” Id. at 841.

        IV.    CONCLUSION

        For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Swint’s

 complaint.

                                               Entered for the Court

                                               Mary Beck Briscoe
                                               Circuit Judge

                                              5