Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Roger WILSON, Appellant v. DELTA AIRLINES; ShareBuilders.com
OPINION *
Roger Wilson, proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissing his complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court.
Wilson filed a complaint against Delta Airlines and ShareBuilders.com alleging that they “stole stock off [him]” that he bought in 2006. Wilson brought his claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1341, a criminal statute prohibiting mail fraud, and sought $25 million in damages.
The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation to dismiss the complaint as frivolous because it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory. The Magistrate Judge explained that the criminal statute that Wilson claims was violated does not provide a private cause of action. The District Court overruled Wilson’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report in which he challenged the procedures that were used and cited additional statutes in support of his claim. This appeal followed.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our standard of review is plenary. Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 194 (3d Cir. 1990).
The District Court’s decision is supported by the record. Wilson has not shown that improper procedures were used in his case. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (authorizing recommendations by a Magistrate Judge). We agree that § 1341 does not on its own give rise to a private cause of action. Wisdom v. First Midwest Bank, 167 F.3d 402, 408 (8th Cir. 1999). To the extent Wilson sought to amend his complaint, he did not show that he has a non-frivolous claim. His complaint was properly dismissed. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989).
Because this appeal does not raise a substantial question, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court.1
FOOTNOTES
1. Wilson’s motion to modify the record to change the amount of damages he seeks from the defendants is denied.
PER CURIAM
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-1871
Decided: July 20, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)