ELAINE ANDERSON,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,

         v.                        Mecklenburg County    
                                No. 04 CVS 17852
SONIA McTAGGART,
    Defendant-Appellee

    Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 24 February 2005 by Judge Timothy L. Patti in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 January 2006.

    WISHART, NORRIS, HENNINGER & PITTMAN, P.A., by William A. Navarro and Steven B. Ockerman, for plaintiff-appellant.

    JAMES, McELROY & DIEHL, P.A., by William K. Diehl, Jr., Preston O. Odom, III, and Irene P. King, for defendant- appellee.

    JOHN, Judge.

    Elaine Anderson (“plaintiff”) appeals the trial court's 24 February 2005 order (1) striking portions of her affidavit in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss and (2) dismissing her complaint with prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal contending the assignments of error contained in the record on appeal fail to comply with the requirements of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure (“the Rules”).
    The assignments of error set out in the record on appeal are categorized as follows:        1. Did the Court err in granting the Defendant's Motion to Strike?

        . . .

        2. Did the Court err in granting the
        Defendant's Motion to Dismiss?

        . . .

        3. If the Court did not err in granting the
        Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, did the Court
        err in ordering the case dismissed with
        prejudice?

    North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(c)(1)(“Rule 10(c)(1)”) mandates that an “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.” N.C.R. App. P. 10(c)(1) (2005). The foregoing assignments of error are neither “confined to a single issue of law,” id., nor “state the legal basis upon which error is assigned,” id. Accordingly, the assignments of error violate Rule 10(c)(1) and thus fail to preserve any issue for appellate review, subjecting the appeal to dismissal. See May v. Down East Homes of Beulaville, Inc., ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 623 S.E.2d 345, 346 (2006), and Walker v. Walker, ___ N.C.App. ___, ___, 624 S.E.2d 639, 642 (2005).
    Our Supreme Court recently reiterated that “[t]he Rules of North Carolina Appellate Procedure are mandatory,” Viar v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., 359 N.C. 400, 401, 610 S.E.2d 360, 360 (2005), and “must be consistently applied,” id. at 402, 610 S.E.2d at 361, or “become meaningless,” id. In Viar, the use by this Court ofN.C.R. App. P. 2 to permit consideration of appeals containing Rule violations was specifically disfavored. See id.
    Following Viar as we are required to do, see Dunn v. Pate, 334 N.C. 115, 118, 431 S.E.2d 178, 180 (1993)(Court of Appeals is bound by decisions of the North Carolina Supreme Court), as well as the multiple subsequent decisions of this Court adhering thereto, see In The Matter of Appeal from Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 384, 379 S.E.2d 30, 37 (1989) (“Where a panel of the Court of Appeals has decided the same issue, albeit in a different case, a subsequent panel of the same court is bound by the precedent, unless it has been overturned by a higher court.”), we conclude after careful consideration that the instant appeal must be dismissed.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Judges BRYANT and CALABRIA concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***