CL D- 2 2 8 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 10- 1845

___________ DAVI D E . HE NDE RS ON, A ppel l ant

v . KE NNE T H KE I S L I NG; NANC Y HE NDE RS ON

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( M . D . Pa. C i vi l N o. 10- cv- 00247) D i s tr i ctJ udge: R i char d P. C onaboy

____________________________________ S u b mi tt e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 J une 24, 2010 B efore: B A R R Y , F ISH E R and G R E E N A W A Y , JR , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: J ul y13, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM D a v id H e n d e rso n a p p e a ls p ro se f ro m th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r d ism iss in g h is c o m p lain t. B e c a u se w e c o n c lu d e th a t th is a p p e a l lac k s a rg u a b le m e rit, w e w ill d ism iss it2

p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ). T he D i s tr i ctC ourthas s um m ar i zed the ca s e and i t s fi ndi ngs i n det ai l , s o a br i ef stat em en t of

the f ac ts i s su ff

ici en t. D av id H en d erso n w as g ran ted lea v e b ythe E astern D istric t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia to p ro c e e d in f o rm a p a u p e ris w ith a c o m p lain t ag a in st K e n n e th K ei s l i ng, hi s br other - i n- l aw , and N ancyH ender s on, hi s s i s t er - i n- l aw . I n the compl ai nt H ender s on i dent i fi es hi m s el f as a form erFor ei gn Servi ce O ffi cerw i th know l edge of a covertdeal betw een G eor ge H . W . B us h and I r an t o del aythe r el eas e of A m er i can hos t ages i n or dert o i nfl uence the out come of the 1980 pr es i dent i al el ect i ons , w hi ch he r efe r s t o as the “O ct oberSurpr i s e. ” H e al l eges thatbecaus e of thi s know l edge “ he has been unde ra dea th thr eatbythe C I A s i nce O ct ober1980 and thi s fac ti s due t o the defe ndant s . . . w ho forper s onal and pol i t i calr eas ons have e ngaged i n a C ons pi r ecy[s i c] of s i l ence t o keep pl ai nt i ff f r om know i ng w hathe know s . ” H ender s on s eeks damages t ot al i ng $27, 000, 000. T he East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a appr oved H ender s on’ s r eques tt o w i thdr aw h is c o m p lain t ag a in st d e f e n d a n t N a n c yH e n d e rso n . T h e c a se w a s u lti m a telytra n sf e rre d to the M i dd l e D i stri ctof P enn sy l van i a, w here defen dan tK enn eth K ei sl i ng res i des. T he case wa s a s s i g n e d t o a M a g i s tr a t e J u d g e , wh o i s s u e d a Re p o r ta n d Re c o mme n d a t i o n ( R&R) concl udi ng thatH ender s on’ s compl ai ntamount ed t o no m or e than a “ fant as t i c or d e l u s i o n a l s c e n a r i o ” l a c k i n g a n yb a s i s i n f a c ta n d s h o u l d b e d i s mi s s e d u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) . N ei t zke v. W i l l i ams, 490 U . S. 319, 328 ( 1989) . H ender s on fi l ed aH end ers on soug ht t o ad d N ancyH end ers on back i nto the co m plai nt atthe las t 1 m i nu t e bu tthe D i stri ctC ou rtj ust i fi ablyrefused bec ause he st at es no v i able cl ai m against ei therK ei s l i ng orH ender s on. 3 documents t at i ng m er el ythathe “appeal s the R eportand R ecomm endat i on. ” The D i s tr i ct C ourt , decl i ni ng t o tr eatthe documentas a pr operobj ect i on, r evi ew ed the R & R forcl ear erro r on ly , an d , b yo rde r en tered M arc h 9 , 2 0 1 0 , ad o p ted it and d ism issed H en d erso n ’s compl ai nt . H ender s on appea l s , and w e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e g ra n ted H e n d e rso n in f o rm a p a u p e ris s tatu s, a n d w e n o w re v iew th is a p p e a l to det erm i ne w hetheri ts houl d be di s m i s s ed under28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) . A n appea l mus tbe di s mi s s e d i f i t“ l a c ks a n a r gu a bl e ba s i s i n e i the rl a w orfa c t . ” N e i t z ke , 49 0 U. S. at325. W e conc l ude thatdi s m i s s al i s r equi r ed her e. T he D i s tr i ctC ourtcorr ect l ydi s m i s s ed H ender s on’ s compl ai nt . E ven i f w e ac cept as true thatH ender s on w as a For ei gn Servi ce O ffi cer , had know l edge of an “O ct ober S urpri se, ” and w as und er a death thr eatbythe C IA , he all eges no arguab l e cl ai m against K ei s l i ng ( orN ancyH ender s on, forthatm att er ) . H ender s on’ s s ol e al l egat i on agai ns tthe 1 defe ndant s i s thatthey“enga ged i n a C ons pi r ecy[s i c] of s i l ence t o keep pl ai nt i ff f r om k n o w in g w h a t h e k n o w s” – a c o n f u sin g sta tem e n t th a t f

a ils to su g g e st a n yc o n c e iv a b le cl ai m . See N ei t zke, 490 U . S. at325. Fur ther , the D i s tr i ctC ourtneed nothave a l l ow ed o p p o rtu n ityto a m e n d b e c a u se d o in g so w o u ldb e f u til e . S e e G ra y so n v . M a yv iew S tate H os p. , 293 F. 3d 103, 106 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . Fi nal l y , ther e i s no bas i s t o chal l enge the D istric t C o u rt’s r e v iew o f th e M a g istra te J u d g e ’s R & R sin c e o n lyth o se “ sp e c if icW e n o te th a t th e M a g istra te J u d g e a ttac h e d to th e R & R a c o p yo f th e L o c a l R u le 2 r equi r i ng the fi l i ng of s peci fi c obj ect i ons and not i ng thatde novo r evi ew bythe D i s tr i ct J udge w as cont i ngenton fi l i ng thos e obj ect i ons . C f. L eyva v. W i l l i ams, 504 F. 3d 357, 3 6 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (d e c lin in g to a p p lyp lain e rro r re v iew o n a p p e a l w h e n a M a g istra te Ju d g e f ail ed to w arn a p ro se li ti g an t of the c o n seq u en ce s o f f

ail ing to f

il e o b jecti o n s). 4 obj ect i ons ” made byH ender s on m us tbe s epar at el ycons i der ed bythe D i s tr i ctC ourt . See G oneyv. C l ark, 749 F. 2d 5, 7 ( 3d C i r . 1984) . H ender s on’ s February25, 2010 2

“ o b j e c t i o n ” t o th e R&R c o n t a i n s n o s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i o n s f

o rth e Di s tr i c tCo u r tt o r e v i e w, and mer el ys t at es that“pl ai nt i ff appeal s the R eportand R ecomm endat i on t o the D i s tr i ct Ju d g e in th is case [.]” I n s um , w e agr ee thatH ender s on’ s compl ai ntw as fr i vol ous , and w e conc l ude that a m e n d m e n t w o u ldb e f

u til e . O u r in d e p e n d e n t re v iew re v e a ls th a t th e re is n o a rg u a b le bas i s t o chal l enge the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s rul i ng on appea l . A ccor di ngl y , thi s appea l w i l l be di s m i s s ed.