Syrus v. National Basketball Assoc, 19-6096

Charles Syrus, proceeding pro se, previously sued over alleged copyright/trademark rights in the phrases “Go Thunder” and “Let’s Go Thunder”; the Tenth Circuit rejected those claims as not protectable.
In a subsequent 2012 suit against Professional Basketball Club (PBC), Magistrate Judge Purcell recommended dismissal and denial of Syrus’s IFP motion; Syrus did not object and thus waived appellate review.
In May 2019 Syrus filed a third, two‑page complaint naming the NBA, PBC, the players’ union, law firms, and Magistrate Judge Purcell, alleging conspiracy, RICO, executive‑privilege abuses, and seeking massive damages ($2 trillion), among other claims.
The district court found the 2019 complaint largely unintelligible, concluded it failed to state a plausible claim under Rule 8 and Twombly/Iqbal, and held claims against Purcell barred by absolute judicial immunity; it dismissed the complaint with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)–(iii).
On appeal Syrus’s brief remained largely unintelligible; he alleged improper special appearance by PBC and a conspiracy to deprive him of rights.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, denied Syrus’s IFP motions for appeal as frivolous/indisputably meritless, and denied several ancillary motions as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint satisfies Rule 8/Twombly‑Iqbal plausibility	Syrus asserted conspiracy, RICO, constitutional violations, and sought reversal/remand	Complaint is nonsensical, gives no fair notice, and fails to plead plausible facts	Dismissed for failure to state a plausible claim under Rule 8/Twombly/Iqbal
Whether Magistrate Judge Purcell can be sued for acts in his judicial role	Syrus alleged Purcell conspired and mishandled prior proceedings	Purcell is protected by absolute judicial immunity	Claims against Purcell barred by judicial immunity
Whether Syrus preserved objections to the magistrate judge’s report and can challenge prior rulings	Syrus contends prior cases were wrongly decided and challenges procedure	Syrus failed to timely object to the R&R, invoking the firm‑waiver rule	Issues decided by the magistrate and adopted by the district court are waived on appeal
Whether Syrus is entitled to proceed IFP on appeal	Syrus seeks IFP to pursue the appeal	The appeal is frivolous/indisputably meritless and lacks a nonfrivolous argument	IFP denied for appeal; supplemental IFP denied

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (complaint must give fair notice and state a plausible claim)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard requires factual content supporting a reasonable inference of liability)
Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (U.S. 1967) (judicial immunity applies even if judge acted maliciously or corruptly)
Morales‑Fernandez v. I.N.S., 418 F.3d 1116 (10th Cir. 2005) (failure to timely object to magistrate judge’s R&R waives appellate review)
Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656 (10th Cir. 1991) (firm‑waiver rule precedent)
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (courts liberally construe pro se pleadings but litigants must still present claims)
Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005) (pro se parties must follow procedural rules and construct arguments)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1989) (standard for dismissing frivolous claims)
McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 115 F.3d 809 (10th Cir. 1997) (IFP on appeal requires financial inability and a nonfrivolous argument)