FLORENCE AMELIA SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v
.
L. OLIVER NOBLE, JR., et als.,
Defendants.
Florence Amelia Smith, plaintiff-appellant, pro-se.
Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by G. Patrick Murphy, Special
Deputy Attorney General, for the State.
Per Curiam.
Plaintiff, Florence Amelia Smith, appeals from two trial
court's orders.
The first, entered 31 July 2000, dismissed her claims against
defendants based on Rules 12(B)(1), (2), and (6) of the North
Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Those rules address motions to
dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, lack
of jurisdiction over the person, and failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Plaintiff then filed three motions
for a new trial or hearing, to amend and make additional findings
and for relief from the order. The second order, entered 17 April
2001, denied all three motions. For the reasons discussed herein,
we dismiss this appeal.
On 12 June 2000, plaintiff filed a complaint againstdefendants, L. Oliver Noble, et al. Defendants are officials of
the State of North Carolina, including judges, attorneys, law
enforcement officers, and clerks of court. Plaintiff alleged
defendants conspired to violate a wide range of her rights through
their actions in adjudicating, defending, or processing civil
actions in which plaintiff was a pro se party.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on absolute
immunity, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted, and failure to allege facts
supporting any genuine claim of wrongful conduct on the part of
defendants. They also claimed that the action was captious,
frivolous, and utterly without merit. The trial court granted the
motion and also entered a pre-filing injunction that stated:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's
obsessive bent toward repetitive, vexatious,
and baseless litigation must be brought to an
end. Plaintiff is therefore ENJOINED as of
this date by the entering of a pre-filing
injunction on all future actions and lawsuits
of whatever description in any state court,
whereby no lawsuit may be filed by plaintiff
without prior approval, upon review of the
merits of the lawsuit, by the Senior Resident
Court Judge of the county in which plaintiff
desires to file the action.
Plaintiff appeals. Her assignments of error include
contentions that the trial court erred in: (1) finding sanctions
against plaintiff when no Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions was filed or
served upon her and no Notice of Hearing on Sanctions was given to
her; (2) incorporating sanctions which severely chilled plaintiff's
open court rights pursuant to Article II of the North Carolina
Constitution; (3) incorporating sanctions which severely chilledplaintiff's freedom of speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment
to the United States Constitution; (4) incorporating sanctions
which severely chilled plaintiff's right to access the full
judicial process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution; (5) using sanctions as an undue force as prohibited
by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; (6) its findings
of fact and conclusions of law which were not congruous with the
evidence presented by defendants; (7) its determination that even
though plaintiff had not been properly noticed on the hearing that
it would not have mattered to the outcome; and (8) not recusing.
However, plaintiff presents no arguments for these assignments
of error nor does she cite any authority. Assignments of error not
addressed in the brief are deemed abandoned under Rule 28(b)(6) of
the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. N.C. R. App.
28(b)(6) (2002)(formerly N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(5)). Further,
plaintiff failed to give a statement of the case and a statement of
the facts, in contravention of Rules 28(b)(3) and (5) of the North
Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. See N.C. R. App. P.
28(b)(3) and (5) (2002). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
DISMISSED.
Panel Consisting of:
Judges WALKER, THOMAS, BIGGS
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***