Court Opinion

ID: 9366763
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-27 21:00:38.47313+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:54.850615
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1090       Doc: 18        Filed: 01/26/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-1090

        ANDREW ELLIOTT WILKINSON,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        FINRA; PLACE AND HANLEY, LCC,

                             Defendants - Appellees,

                      and

        WELLS FARGO CLEARING SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a Wells Fargo Advisors;
        ANGIE OSTENDARP; MIKE QUIMBY; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

                             Defendants.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:19-cv-00580-RJC)

        Submitted: December 22, 2022                                      Decided: January 26, 2023

        Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Andrew Elliott Wilkinson, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1090      Doc: 18        Filed: 01/26/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Andrew Elliott Wilkinson appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil

        complaint both for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and as barred by res judicata.

        We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the

        district court’s judgment. We deny Wilkinson’s motions for a transcript at government

        expense, for copies of sealed documents, to participate in criminal proceedings, and to

        amend his complaint. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

        contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

        not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                     AFFIRMED

                                                    2