Bledsoe v. County of Wilkes

519 S.E.2d 316, 135 N.C. App. 124, 1999 N.C. App. LEXIS 921
CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina
DecidedSeptember 21, 1999
DocketCOA98-1403
StatusPublished
Cited by30 cases

This text of 519 S.E.2d 316 (Bledsoe v. County of Wilkes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bledsoe v. County of Wilkes, 519 S.E.2d 316, 135 N.C. App. 124, 1999 N.C. App. LEXIS 921 (N.C. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff has appealed from summary judgment entered in favor of defendants. However, plaintiff has failed to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure, thereby warranting dismissal of his appeal. A few of these violations appear below:

1. Plaintiff failed to file the record on appeal with this Court within fifteen (15) days after it was settled, in violation of Rule 12(a).

2. Plaintiff failed to include within the record the Return of Summons, as required by Rule 9(a)(1)(c).

*125 3. Certain motions, notices, and other papers plaintiff included as part of the record did not contain filing dates. This violates Rule 9(b)(3).

4. Plaintiff failed to list assignments of error at the conclusion of the record, as required by Rules 9(a)(l)(k) and 10(c)(1). Thus, plaintiff’s brief also failed to refer to any assignments of error, in contravention of Rule 28(b)(5).

The Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory; failure to comply with these rules subjects an appeal to dismissal. Steingress v. Steingress, 350 N.C. 64, 65, 511 S.E.2d 298, 299 (1999). Furthermore, these rules apply to everyone — whether acting pro se or being represented by all of the five largest law firms in the state. Because plaintiff violated many of the appellate rules, his appeal must be dismissed, notwithstanding his pro se status.

Additionally, we have reviewed this case on its merits and conclude that plaintiffs arguments are without merit.

Dismissed.

Panel consisting of:

Judges LEWIS, MARTIN, and HUNTER

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Phillips v. Ormsbee
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2026
Stroupe v. Mills
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2025
Bard v. Rampel
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2025
Ajayi v. Seaman
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2024
Guerra v. Harbor Freight Tools
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2023
Gillespie v. Majestic Transp., Inc.
2017 NCBC 43 (North Carolina Business Court, 2017)
Wilson v. Wilson
790 S.E.2d 751 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2016)
State v. Dale
783 S.E.2d 222 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2016)
Jensen v. Jessamy
776 S.E.2d 364 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2015)
Davis v. McCoy
775 S.E.2d 695 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2015)
Smith v. N.C. Dep't of Pub. Safety
773 S.E.2d 574 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2015)
Henslee v. N.C. Dep't of Pub. Safety
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2014
Tyll v. Willets
748 S.E.2d 329 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2013)
GIAMBELLI v. Hansen
691 S.E.2d 768 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2010)
CAROLINA FOREST ASS'N, INC. v. White
678 S.E.2d 725 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2009)
Dye v. Dye
647 S.E.2d 689 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2007)
Cadle Co. v. Buyna
647 S.E.2d 461 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2007)
Burgess v. Am. Express Co.
2007 NCBC 16 (North Carolina Business Court, 2007)
White v. Carver
622 S.E.2d 718 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2005)
Beachcrete, Inc. v. Water Street Center Associates, L.L.C.
615 S.E.2d 719 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
519 S.E.2d 316, 135 N.C. App. 124, 1999 N.C. App. LEXIS 921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bledsoe-v-county-of-wilkes-ncctapp-1999.