DLD-264 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 18-1873
___________
ROGER WILSON,
Appellant
v.
MCKEESPORT POLICE DEPT/CITY OF MCKEESPORT; SECURITY EXCHANGE
COMM.; US GOV’T; STATE OF PA
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(W.D. Pa. Civil Action No. 2-18-cv-00307)
District Judge: Honorable Nora Barry Fischer
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
July 12, 2018
Before: JORDAN, SHWARTZ and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 20, 2018)
_________
OPINION *
_________
PER CURIAM
Roger Wilson, proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United States District
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
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 the McKeesport Police Department and other
defendants alleging that he filed complaints in 2011 and 2017 about Delta Airlines’ theft
of “10 million in stock.” He averred that the police investigated and then refused “to get
it.” Wilson also alleged that he complained to the Securities and Exchange Commission
and that it refused to do its job. Wilson brought his claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1503,
which prohibits certain forms of obstruction of justice, 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 criminal statutes, such as § 1503, do not
give rise to a civil cause of action. The District Court overruled Wilson’s objections to
the report in which he challenged the procedures that were used and asserted that his
claims may be brought under antitrust laws. 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). To the extent § 1503 has any applicability, we
agree with the District Court that it does not provide for a private cause of action. Cf.
2
Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1855-56 (2017) (courts will not create a private cause
of action where a statute does not itself so provide); Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v.
First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164, 190 (1994) (noting reluctance to
infer a private right of action from a criminal prohibition alone). Wilson has not shown
that he has a non-frivolous antitrust claim. His complaint was properly dismissed. See
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Because this appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily
affirm the judgment of the District Court. 1
1
Wilson’s motion and supplemental motion for leave to raise the amount of
damages sought in his complaint are denied. The motion for summary affirmance filed
by the United States is granted; its request to stay the briefing schedule is denied as moot.
3