Celeste Broughton v. W. Sidney Aldridge, Jr., No. 11-1115 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1115 CELESTE G. BROUGHTON, Plaintiff Appellant, v. W. SIDNEY ALDRIDGE, JR.; JOHN N. MCCLAIN, JR.; ROBERT B. RADER, JR., Judge; WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; WELLS FARGO ADVISORS, LLC, Defendants Appellees. No. 11-1186 CELESTE G. BROUGHTON, Plaintiff Appellant, v. W. SIDNEY ALDRIDGE, JR.; JOHN N. MCCLAIN, JR.; ROBERT B. RADER, JR., Judge; WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; WELLS FARGO ADVISORS, LLC, Defendants Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:10-cv-00231-FL) Submitted: August 31, 2011 Decided: September 9, 2011 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Celeste G. Broughton, Appellant Pro Se. John N. McClain, Jr., David Hayes Permar, HATCH, LITTLE & BUNN, Raleigh, North Carolina; Debbie Weston Harden, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; William Sidney Aldridge, Kevin Lamar Sink, NICHOLLS & CRAMPTON, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina; Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Celeste orders dismissing G. Broughton her 42 appeals U.S.C. denying her post-judgment motions. and find no reversible error. § 1983 the district (2006) court s complaint and We have reviewed the record Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Broughton v. Aldridge, 5:10-cv-00231-FL (E.D.N.C. Nov. 17, 2010, Jan. 28, 2011, Feb. 15, 2011). We deny Broughton s motions to seal the district court s opinion, for a ruling on the motion to seal, and to disqualify the court s North Carolina judges. We dispense with oral contentions argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before the court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.