An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Proced ure.

NO. COA04-1405
                                          &nb sp; 

Filed: 2 August 2005


v .                                 Person County
                                    No. 04 CVS 298
AMELIA HICKS, Individually and
a North Carolina Corporation;
and XRS, Inc., a Georgia Corporation

    Appeal by plaintiff from orders entered 13 July 2004 by Judge W. Osmond Smith, III, in Person County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 June 2005.

    Alisa G. Mitchell, pro se, for plaintiff-appellant.

    Hunton & Williams, LLP, by Steven B. Epstein, for defendant- appellee XRS, Inc.

    Manning Fulton & Skinner, P.A., by William C. Smith, Jr., for defendant-appellees Amelia Hicks and Pointer & Associates, Inc.

    LEVINSON, Judge.

    Plaintiff appeals from orders dismissing her claims against defendants for failure to state a claim for relief. We conclude that her appeal should be dismissed.
    Plaintiff tendered an offer to purchase a house in Person County, but the seller of the house accepted a different offer. On 10 May 2004 plaintiff filed suit against defendants, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for alleged unfair or deceptivetrade practices, conspiracy to commit unfair or deceptive trade practices, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Defendants moved for dismissal under N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) (2003). On 13 July 2004 the trial court entered orders dismissing plaintiff's claims against all defendants under Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim for relief. Plaintiff appeals from the orders of dismissal.

    N.C.R. App. P. 10, which governs assignments of error on appeal, provides in pertinent part that:
        (a) Except as otherwise provided herein, the scope of review on appeal is confined to a consideration of those assignments of error set out in the record on appeal in accordance with this Rule 10.
        . . . .

        (c)(1) Each assignment of error shall, so far as practicable, be confined to a single issue of law; and shall state plainly, concisely and without argumentation the legal basis upon which error is assigned.

In the instant case, plaintiff's sole assignment of error states that she assigns error to “[t]he ruling of the trial court in its Order of Dismissal entered on July 13, 2004.” This putative assignment of error merely reiterates, as stated in the notice of appeal, that plaintiff is appealing the trial court's dismissal orders.
    We conclude plaintiff violated the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure by failing to state any legal basis for her lone assignment of error. See, e.g., Department of Transp. v.Rowe, 353 N.C. 671, 674, 549 S.E.2d 203, 207 (2001) (alleged error “not properly presented” to this Court where plaintiff failed to comply with “Rule 10(c) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure [which] requires that an appellant state the legal basis for all assignments of error”); Lee v. Mut. Community Sav. Bank, 136 N.C. App. 808, 809 n.1, 525 S.E.2d 854, 856 n.1 (2000) (plaintiff in violation of Rule 10(c)(1) where the “sole assignment of error” stated only that the “trial court committed error when it dismissed [Plaintiffs'] claim . . . under Rule 12(b)(6)”).
    Violation of the Rules of Appellate Procedure subjects an appeal to dismissal. N.C.R. App. P. 28. The North Carolina Supreme Court has held that:
        The North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory and 'failure to follow these rules will subject an appeal to dismissal.' . . .[T]he Rules of Appellate Procedure must be consistently applied; otherwise, the Rules become meaningless, and an appellee is left without notice of the basis upon which an appellate court might rule.

Viar v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., 359 N.C. 400, 401-02, 610 S.E.2d 360, 361-62 (2005) (quoting Steingress v. Steingress, 350 N.C. 64, 65, 511 S.E.2d 298, 299 (1999)). We conclude plaintiff's appeal should be
    Judges McGEE and HUNTER concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***