UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________ GREGORY CARL: WIND, JR., T.M.W.O.P., LLC, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. ROBERT GALLARDO; TIFFANI HOLUBEK; DAVID ALLEN; CAPTAIN KIRK, Defendants

- Appellees. No. 22

- 1012 (D.C. No. 1:21

- CV

- 02243

- LTB

- GPG) (D. Colo.)

_______________ __________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

_________________________________ Before MATHESON , KELLY , and ROSSMAN , Circuit Judges. **

_________________________________ Plaintiff

- Appellant Gregory Carl Wind, Jr., a state prisoner appearing pro se, appeals the d ismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action without prejudice under Rule 41(b)

. Wind v. Gallardo , No. 21

- cv - 02243, 2021 WL 6497034 (D. Colo. Dec. 17, 2021). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### May 19, 2022 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Appellate Case: 22-1012 Document: 010110686563 Date Filed: 05/19/2022 Page: 12 Mr. Wind is no stranger to the federal court syste m. Since 2017, he has had several complaints dismissed for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and/or 41(b)

. Wind v. U.S. Inc. , 821 F. App’x 942, 942 (10th Cir. 2020) (unpublished) ; see also Wind v. Colo

. Att ’ y Gen. , 774 F. App’x 449 , 452 (10th Cir. 2019) (unpublished). Here, the district court overruled Mr. Wind’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendatio n
. See Win d v. Gallardo , No. 21

- cv 02243, 2021 WL 6497035 (D. Colo. Nov. 29, 2021). The a ction was dismissed for failure to comply with the magistrate judge’s earlier order to amend the complaint to comply with the requirements of the various claims he appeared to be asserting

. Wind , 2021 WL 6497034 , at *1.
We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s Rule 41(b) dismissal. Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents , 492 F.3d 1158, 1161 (10th Cir. 2007). The district court did not abuse its discretion. The magistrate judge’s October 4,
2021 o rder both provided Mr. Wind with instruction and opportunity to amend his complaint and explained the consequences of imprope r amendment . R. 73

– 80. Instead, Mr. Wind filed various other pleadings that did not respond to the o rder. Wind , 2021 WL 6497035 at *4. On appeal, Mr. Wind fails to challenge the reasons for the district court’s dismissal, and while we read his pro se p leadings liberally, we cannot fashion claims for him

. Requena v. Roberts , 893 F.3d 1195, 1205 (10th Cir. 2018). We find no abuse of discretion. Appellate Case: 22-1012 Document: 010110686563 Date Filed: 05/19/2022 Page: 23 AFFIRM ED

.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge Appellate Case: 22-1012 Document: 010110686563 Date Filed: 05/19/2022 Page: 3