Bryan v. Bussiere

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Naseef Bryan
v. Civil No. 23-cv-343-JL
Emile R. Bussiere, Jr.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se plaintiff Naseef Bryan, appearing in forma pauperis,
filed a complaint (Doc. No. 1) against Emile Bussiere, Jr. On
July 21, 2023, the court granted plaintiff leave to amend his
complaint to add factual support for any causes of action he
intended to assert against the defendant. (Doc. No. 3).
Plaintiff has timely filed an amended complaint. (Doc. No. 4).
The court will therefore complete its preliminary review, in
accordance with LR 4.3(d)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). As
explained more fully below, the amended complaint cures none of
the shortcomings of the original.1 This case should therefore be
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
Standard of Review
The magistrate judge conducts a preliminary review of
1In deference to plaintiff’s pro se status, the court will
consider both the original and amended complaints in its
analysis.
Case 1:23-cv-00343-JL Document 5 Filed 09/29/23 Page 1 of 4

2
pleadings, like Mr. Bryan’s, that are filed in forma pauperis.
See LR 4.3(d). The magistrate judge may recommend to the
district judge that one or more claims be dismissed if, among
other things, the court lacks jurisdiction, a defendant is
immune from the relief sought, or the complaint fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2); LR 4.3(d). In conducting its preliminary review,
the court construes pro se complaints liberally. See Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). The complaint
must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (citation omitted). The court treats as true all
well-pleaded factual allegations, and construes reasonable
inferences in plaintiff’s favor. See Ocasio-Hernández v.
Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011).
Discussion
Plaintiff names Emile R. Bussiere, Jr. as the only
defendant, but there are only scant references to the defendant
in his filings. For example, and as noted in the court’s July
21, 2023, order, in the section of the form complaint captioned
“Jurisdiction and Venue,” plaintiff states that he is suing Mr.
Bussiere “for money and other damages arising from (cause of
action) by the defendant, court, stating as follows[.]”
Complaint (Doc. No 1) at 2. Next, in his amended complaint,
Case 1:23-cv-00343-JL Document 5 Filed 09/29/23 Page 2 of 4

3
plaintiff asserts that he has repeatedly “’state[d]’ the relief
[he has] been seeking which is in the ‘position’ of the
defendant (Emile R. Bussiere) which is the primary agent
registered for the specific location. Am. Compl. (Doc. No. 4)
at 1. No other facts are alleged with respect to the defendant.
Plaintiff lists four causes of action: 1) Breach of law
(listing the First, Seventh Ninth, Tenth and Fourteenth
Amendments, as well as the Declaration of Independence); 2)
Negligence (listing “the deprivation of rights and redress”); 3)
Intentional infliction of emotional distress; and 4) Abuse of
Process (“filing motion to dismissed – refusal to produce
evidence against future witnesses which led to more implications
for the plaintiff.”).2
Even liberally construing the complaint, see Erickson, 551
U.S. at 94, the court cannot find that Mr. Bryan has stated the
minimum facts necessary to allow his claim to proceed. There are
no allegations supporting any potential cause of action against
the defendant. Accordingly, this case should be dismissed for
failure to state a claim.
2Without explanation, plaintiff has attached to his amended
complaint lengthy treatises about colorectal cancer and the
Salem witch trials. Am. Compl. (Doc. Nos. 4-1 and 4-2).
Case 1:23-cv-00343-JL Document 5 Filed 09/29/23 Page 3 of 4

4
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should
dismiss this case in its entirety. Any objections to this Report
and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of receipt
of this notice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The fourteen-day
period may be extended upon motion. Failure to file any
objection within the specified time waives the right to appeal
the district court's Order. See Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno,
842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
Only those issues raised in the objection(s) to this Report
and Recommendation “are subject to review in the district
court.” Id. (cleaned up). Additionally, any issues “not
preserved by such objection are precluded on appeal.” Id.
_____________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
September 29, 2023
cc: Naseef Bryan, Jr., pro se
Case 1:23-cv-00343-JL Document 5 Filed 09/29/23 Page 4 of 4