FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 7, 2021
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
DJUAN PRESTON WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 21-3089
(D.C. No. 6:20-CV-01224-JWB-GEB)
STATE OF OKLAHOMA; OESC, (D. Kan.)
oesc.ok.gov; RONALD MASSON, Acct.
Executive, Prime Media Production; BILL
WIELAND, Co-GM, Sonic Drive-in;
AMY FLORES, Business Owner; GALEN
H. PELTON, CEO/President; KAY
RICHARDS, Kiowa County Court Clerk;
MARTIN LONG; GRANT COUNTY,
KANSAS,
Defendants - Appellees.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before MATHESON, BRISCOE, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
*
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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
Djuan Preston Williams, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Complaint and “Additional Exhibits”
Mr. Williams sued the State of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Employment Security
Committee, Grant County, Kansas, and several individuals in federal district court.
He alleged as follows:
From 05/21/2020 to the present date Defendant(s) engaged
in unethical corrupt behavior to disrupt the lives and
livelihood of the Plaintiffs, w/ Employment
Discrimination, Religious Discrimination, Title VII of
Civil Rights of 1964, including violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
ROA, Vol. 1 at 8. He sought about $200,000 in damages.
Mr. Williams attached to his complaint “additional exhibits,” including copies
of “Uniform Warning Notice[s] and Equipment Repair Order[s]” from the city of
Ulysses, Kansas; a receipt from the Court Clerk of Okmulgee County, Oklahoma; the
docket sheet from a prior civil action in the Western District of Oklahoma in which
Mr. Williams was the plaintiff; and filings from a divorce action in Grant County,
Kansas. Mr. Williams later filed more “additional exhibits,” including other
“Uniform Warning Notice[s] and Equipment Repair Order[s],” and other filings from
the divorce action.
2
Report and Recommendation
When Mr. Williams filed his complaint, he moved to proceed in forma
pauperis. The district court referred Mr. Williams’s complaint for screening by a
magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The
magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending
dismissal of the complaint.
Liberally construing the complaint and its exhibits, the magistrate judge
concluded Mr. Williams had not stated a claim. He had “fail[ed] to provide any
specific factual support for his allegations against the wide ranging Defendants.”
ROA, Vol. 1 at 69. And Mr. Williams’s “additional exhibits” were offered “without
any explanation or discernable meaning.” Id. at 70. On his claim under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he had failed to allege administrative exhaustion. As to
the Fair Credit Reporting Act claim, “Defendants are not credit reporting agencies
against which a private cause of action is permitted.” Id.
Mr. Williams’s Objection to the R&R
Mr. Williams objected to the R&R. His objection did not identify any errors
in the magistrate judge’s reasoning. He instead offered additional facts not alleged in
the complaint, and argued that the R&R was “purely based on [the magistrate
judge’s] self opinionated Recommendations.” App. at 80.
3
Adoption of the R&R
The district court adopted the R&R. It held that Mr. Williams’s objections
were improper because they were unresponsive to the R&R. The court dismissed Mr.
Williams’s claims and entered final judgment.
Mr. Williams timely appeals.
II. DISCUSSION
Mr. Williams’s arguments on appeal are unpersuasive.
First, he contends that he adequately alleged claims for relief, and that the
district court misconstrued the facts. We disagree. Because Mr. Williams
represented himself, we must liberally construe his complaint. Requena v. Roberts,
893 F.3d 1195, 1205 (10th Cir. 2018). We also must consider the exhibits to Mr.
Williams’s complaint. Id. But even as a self-represented party, Mr. Williams “bears
the burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be
based.” Id. (quotations omitted). We agree with the district court that Mr.
Williams’s limited allegations and his unexplained “additional exhibits” do not state
a cognizable claim. He fails to explain in his appellate brief how the district court
erred.
Second, Mr. Williams argues the district court’s decision to adopt the
magistrate judge’s R&R was arbitrary or showed racial bias. He has provided no
record support for this argument.
4
III. CONCLUSION
We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Williams’s complaint.
Entered for the Court
Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
Circuit Judge
5