DLD-266 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 18-1875 ___________

ROGER WILSON, Appellant

v.

MIKE HEALEY ____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (W.D. Pa. Civil Action No. 2-18-cv-00311) District Judge: Honorable Nora Barry Fischer ____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to

(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

(e)(2)(B). We will summarily affirm the judgment of the

District Court.

Wilson filed a complaint against attorney Mike Healey, who was appointed to

represented him at a supervised release violation and revocation hearing. Wilson’s

complaint is not very clear. He alleges that Healey allowed the judge to find him

incompetent and allowed his case to go to trial without a preliminary hearing and after

the supervised release officer lied under oath. He also avers that Healey allowed him to

be detained outside his district before a trial or conviction and for a period greater than

his sentence. Wilson also alleges that his patents were stolen. Wilson brought his

complaint pursuant to

, which prohibits holding or selling persons into

involuntary servitude, and sought $100 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, while there is a civil remedy for a violation

of § 1584, Wilson had alleged no facts supporting a claim that he was a victim of slavery.

The District Court overruled Wilson’s objections to the report in which he challenged the

procedures that were used and reiterated his complaints about the incompetency ruling,

the length of his detention, and the theft of his patents. This appeal followed.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to

. Our standard of review is

plenary. Roman v. Jeffes,

(3d Cir. 1990).

2 The District Court’s decision is supported by the record. Wilson has not shown

that improper procedures were used in his case, see

(b) (authorizing

recommendations by a Magistrate Judge), that his allegations implicate § 1584, or that he

has a non-frivolous claim against Healey related to his criminal case or his patents.

Wilson’s complaint was properly dismissed. See Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989).

Because this appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily

affirm the judgment of the District Court.

3