&nb sp; 
        

ROCCO M. YALLUM &
SANDRA F. YALLUM,
    Plaintiffs,

         v.                        Gaston County
                                No. 03 CVS 1955
DENNIS R. HAMMERLE,
BARBARA A. HAMMERLE,
ALAN G. CLONINGER,
WARREN H. MOSS and
MOSS REALTY,
    Defendants.
    

    Appeal by plaintiffs from order entered 17 November 2003 by Judge F. Donald Bridges and from summary judgment order entered 24 March 2004 by Judge Timothy L. Patti in Gaston County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 July 2005.

    Rocco M. Yallum and Sandra F. Yallum, plaintiff-appellants, pro se.

    R. Locke Bell for defendant-appellees Dennis R. Hammerle and Barbara A. Hammerle.

    Jim R. Funderburk for defendant-appellee Alan G. Cloninger.

    Gray, Layton, Kersh, Solomon, Sigmon, Furr & Smith, P.A., by David W. Smith, III, for defendant-appellees Warren H. Moss and Moss Realty.

    LEVINSON, Judge.

    On 6 December 2004, Rocco M. Yallum and Sandra F. Yallum (plaintiffs) filed their pro se “proposed settling record on appeal” with this Court. They assert in the document that they served the proposed record on appeal upon defendants on 28 October2004 and that defendants failed to respond to it. As a result of defendants' failure to respond, plaintiffs state that the record on appeal was deemed settled pursuant to N.C.R. App. P. 11(b). Our review of the contents of the record on appeal reveals that it lacks the necessary documents to confer jurisdiction upon this Court to review either the 17 November 2003 order or the 24 March 2004 summary judgment order.
    As the appellants, plaintiffs had the duty and responsibility of seeing that the record on appeal filed with this Court was complete. See Hill v. Hill, 13 N.C. App. 641, 642, 186 S.E.2d 665, 666 (1972). “In appeals from the trial division . . . , review is solely upon the record on appeal and the verbatim transcript of proceedings, if one is designated.” N.C.R. App. P. 9(a). Rule 9 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure lists the function and composition of the record on appeal, and it states that “[t]he record on appeal in civil actions . . . shall contain . . . a copy of the judgment, order, or other determination from which appeal is taken; . . . [and] a copy of the notice of appeal . . . [.]” N.C.R. App. P. 9 (a)(1)(h) and (i) .
    Several documents which are required by Rule 9 are not contained in plaintiffs' record on appeal, including their notices of appeal, the order entered by Judge F. Donald Bridges, and the summary judgment order entered by Judge Timothy L. Patti. See id. Due to plaintiffs' failure to include their notices of appeal in the record on appeal, this Court is without jurisdiction to review the trial court's rulings in this matter. See CrowellConstructors, Inc. v. State ex rel. Cobey, 328 N.C. 563, 563-64, 402 S.E.2d 407, 408 (1991). Assuming arguendo that this Court did have jurisdiction to review the trial court's rulings, t he appeal would still be subject to dismissal b ecause neither of the trial court's orders are contained in the record on appeal. See Abels v. Renfro Corp., 126 N.C. App. 800, 804, 486 S.E.2d 735, 738 (1997).
    Each of the defendants has filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' appeal on the basis of their failure to include necessary documents in the record on appeal. For the reasons stated in the above discussion of the inadequate record on appeal, defendants' motions to dismiss the appeal are allowed. Because defendants' motions to dismiss the appeal were meritorious, plaintiffs' motion to sanction defendants for filing frivolous motions is denied.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Judges MCGEE and HUDSON concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***