Swint v. Dish Network

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: November 21, 2023
• Docket: 23-4098
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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