JOSEPH M. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
.
Durham County
No. 02 CVS 00755
THE ESTATE OF JOHN H. GRIMES SR.,
SHARON S. GRIMES, EXECUTRIX;
JOHN H GRIMES, P.A.; C. BRYAN
KOON; LARRY M. CRANE; M. DAVID
WIENER; JENNIFER SWANSON;
JONATHAN E. KLEIN; ORANGE FAMILY
MEDICAL GROUP, P.A.; DURHAM COUNTY
HOSPITAL CORPORATION; DUKE
UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM,INC.;
DUKE UNIVERSITY AFFILIATED
PHYSICIANS, INC.; DURHAM RADIOLOGY
ASSOCIATES, P.A.; and PRIVATE
DIAGNOSTIC CLINIC, P.L.L.C.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Joseph M. Williams, Jr., plaintiff-appellant, pro se.
Patterson, Dilthey, Clay, Bryson & Anderson, L.L.P., by Donna
R. Rutala, Christopher J. Derrenbacher, and Heather R.
Waddell, for defendants-appellees Jonathan E. Klein and Orange
Family Medical Group, P.A.
Moore & Van Allen, PLLC, by William E. Freeman, for
defendants-appellees The Estate of John H. Grimes, Sr., Sharon
S. Grimes, Executrix; John H. Grimes, P.A.; Durham County
Hospital Corporation; Duke University Health System, Inc.;
Duke University Affiliated Physicians, Inc.; and Private
Diagnostic Clinic, P.L.L.C.
Newsom, Graham, Hedrick & Kennon, P.A., by Joel M. Craig, for
defendants-appellees C. Bryan Koon; Larry M. Crane; M. David
Weiner; and Durham Radiology Associates, P.A.
Manning, Fulton & Skinner, P.A., by Thomas C. Kilpatrick, fordefendant-appellee Jennifer Swanson.
McGEE, Judge.
Plaintiff filed a complaint on 19 February 2002 against the
defendants alleging negligence. Plaintiff committed numerous
procedural errors, including failure to follow proper procedure in
the issuance of summons and service of process. All defendants
filed motions to dismiss. The trial court ordered plaintiff's
claims be dismissed with prejudice. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a
motion to alter and amend judgment, as well as a motion requesting
findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court denied
plaintiff's motions. Plaintiff appeals.
Defendants the Estate of John H. Grimes, Sr., Sharon S.
Grimes, Executrix; John H. Grimes, P.A.; Durham County Hospital
Corporation; Duke University Health System, Inc.; Duke University
Affiliated Physicians, Inc.; and the Private Diagnostic Clinic,
P.L.L.C., filed a motion to strike portions of the record on appeal
pursuant to Rule 37 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate
Procedure. The portion requested to be stricken by this motion is
identical to that requested in a motion filed by defendants
Jonathan E. Klein and Orange Family Medical Group, P.A. and
subsequently allowed by this Court on 4 June 2003. Therefore, we
allow the present motion to strike portions of the record on appeal
in accordance with the previous order of this Court.
Defendants Jonathan E. Klein and Orange Family Medical Group,
P.A. filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's appeal on the groundsthat (1) plaintiff failed to comply with the trial court's order
settling the record on appeal, by including affidavits of service
not included in the proposed record and excluding summonses
directed to be included in the record; (2) failing to properly
number the pages of the record on appeal, (3) improperly citing to
briefs from other appellate cases and attempting to include by
reference the arguments from those briefs in his own brief; (4)
failing to properly identify plaintiff's assignments of error in
the argument of his brief; (5)failing to follow the formatting
requirements of Rule 26(g) and Appendix B of the North Carolina
Rules of Appellate Procedure with regard to line spacing and the
inclusion of an affidavit in the brief itself; and (6) failing to
cite to any legal authority in support of his argument.
Having carefully reviewed the record, we find that plaintiff's
numerous violations of the N.C. Rules of Appellate Procedure are
egregious. An appellate court may clearly dismiss an appeal for
failure to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. N.C.R.
App. P. 25(b), 34(b)(1); Steingress v. Steingress, 350 N.C. 64, 511
S.E.2d 298 (1999); Bledsoe v. County of Wilkes, 135 N.C. App. 124,
125, 519 S.E.2d 316, 317 (1999)(the Rules of Appellate Procedure
"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."). Thus, in accordance with
N.C.R. App. P. 34, this Court dismisses plaintiff's appeal.
We have, in addition, reviewed plaintiff's assignments oferror and conclude they are without merit.
Dismissed.
Judges HUDSON and CALABRIA concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***