ALONZO LEE BEALE,
Plaintiff,
v
.
Wayne County
No. 01 CVD 1394
CHRISHENNA KING MANLEY,
Defendant.
Alonzo Lee Beale, plaintiff, pro se.
No brief filed for defendant.
HUDSON, Judge.
This case arises from a child custody dispute between
plaintiff Alonzo L. Beale and his former wife, defendant Chrishenna
King Manley, over custody of the parties' minor children, A.J. and
Ardeja. Plaintiff and defendant entered a consent order for joint
legal custody on 6 November 2001. Under the terms of that order,
defendant had primary physical custody and the children were to
spend Wednesdays and every other weekend with plaintiff, in
addition to half of the overnights during school holidays. In July
of 2002, defendant moved with the children to California. On 31
December 2002, plaintiff filed a motion to show cause as to why
defendant should not be held in contempt for violating the consentorder, and also sought primary custody of the children. By order
entered 13 January 2004 and following a hearing, the court made
detailed findings of fact and concluded that because of the
distance between the homes of the parties, it was in the children's
best interest to modify the custody provisions. The court found no
substantial change in circumstances, but modified the physical
custody provisions due to the distance, awarding plaintiff custody
during summer recess and during Christmas break from school.
Plaintiff appeals. As discussed below, we dismiss this appeal.
Plaintiff's brief contains numerous violations of the North
Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. Although appellee has filed
no brief, we note these violations on our own motion. Jeffreys v.
Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture, 115 N.C. App. 377, 380, 444 S.E.2d 252,
254 (1994). Plaintiff's brief was submitted in single-spaced
typefont. N.C. R. App. P. 26 (g). Plaintiff's brief contains no
cover page, statement of questions presented for review, statement
of procedural history, or statement of grounds for appellate
review. N.C. R. App. P. 28(b). In addition, plaintiff's statement
of facts is incomplete and argumentative. Id. The brief fails to
cite any authority for its arguments and contentions. Id.
Finally, the record on appeal lists some twelve assignments of
error, but plaintiff's brief makes no reference to any of these, as
required by Rule 28. N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6)
.
“[W]hen the
appellant's brief does not . . . properly set[] forth exceptions
and assignments of error with reference to the transcript . . . it
is difficult if not impossible to properly determine the appeal.” Steingress v.
Steingress, 350 N.C. 64, 66, 511 S.E.2d 298, 299
(1999)
(internal citations omitted).
The appellate rules are not
merely technical; rather, they are intended to facilitate effective
consideration of an appellant's arguments.
“[T]he Rules of
Appellate Procedure[] are mandatory and failure to follow these
rules will subject an appeal to dismissal.” Steingress, 350 N.C.
at 65, 511 S.E.2d at 299 (internal citations omitted).
Although
plaintiff is appearing pro se, the rules are equally applicable to
him. “[T]hese 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.”
Bledsoe v. County of Wilkes, 135 N.C. App. 124, 125, 519 S.E.2d
316, 317 (1999).
This Court may waive the rules, in its discretion, and
consider the substance of an appellant's arguments.
N.C. R. App.
P.
2.
However, here we conclude that because of plaintiff's
numerous violations of the rules, he has not properly presented any
issues for review and this appeal should be dismissed.
Dismissed.
Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge JACKSON concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***