Anthony Roland v. Nbc Subsidiary (wmaq-Tv) LLC

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted October 21, 2025*
Decided October 24, 2025
Before
CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
NANCY L. MALDONADO, Circuit Judge
No. 24-3102
ANTHONY ROLAND,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NBC SUBSIDIARY (WMAQ-TV) LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 24-CV-4500
Jeremy C. Daniel,
Judge.
O R D E R
Anthony Roland filed a complaint against NBC Subsidiary (WMAQ-TV) LLC for
conducting “unauthorized zoom” calls through his television, then broadcasting
recordings of him, commenting on his appearance, and imitating his hand gestures back
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 24-3102 Page 2
at him. The district court dismissed the suit as frivolous, reflecting paranoid and
delusional fears.
On appeal, Roland asserts that the court disregarded certain evidence that he
attached to his amended complaint—(1) a digital recording of him waving and
gesturing at the television while watching the Today Show and (2) affidavits from
several witnesses attesting that they saw a “Zoom experience” violate Roland’s right to
privacy. But these materials add nothing to his implausible allegations that WMAQ-TV
committed the Illinois tort of “intrusion on seclusion,” W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Krishna
Schaumburg Tan, Inc., 183 N.E.3d 47, 58 (Ill. 2021), or violated 19 U.S.C. § 1592, the civil
penalty provision under the Tariff Act of 1930 for fraud, gross negligence, or negligence
in importing merchandise. And to the extent Roland believes that the district court
deprived him of due process by dismissing the case without a hearing, no evidentiary
hearing is required when the factual allegations—as here—are incredible. Gladney v.
Pendleton Corr. Facility, 302 F.3d 773, 774 (7th Cir. 2002). The district court rightly
dismissed this case as frivolous. See, e.g., Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025 (7th Cir. 2000).
We close with a word about sanctions. Since 2018, Roland has filed five frivolous
cases in the Northern District of Illinois asserting unauthorized surveillance via
television. He has appealed four of them, and all were dismissed. We now warn Roland
that further repetitive and frivolous filings may result in sanctions, including fines that,
if unpaid, may result in a bar on filing papers in civil lawsuits in any court within this
circuit. See Support Sys. Int’l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186 (7th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --