DLD-262 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 18-1871 ___________

ROGER WILSON, Appellant

v.

DELTA AIRLINES; SHAREBUILDERS.COM ____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (W.D. Pa. Civil Action No. 2-18-cv-00305) 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 Delta Airlines and ShareBuilders.com alleging

that they “stole stock off [him]” that he bought in 2006. Wilson brought his claim under

, 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

. Our standard of review is

plenary. Roman v. Jeffes,

(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

(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,

(8th

Cir. 1999). To the extent Wilson sought to amend his complaint, he did not show that he

2 has a non-frivolous claim. His complaint was properly dismissed. See Neitzke v.

Williams,

(1989).

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

affirm the judgment of the District Court. 1

1 Wilson’s motion to modify the record to change the amount of damages he seeks from the defendants is denied. 3