An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA05-1284

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 18 April 2006

IN THE MATTER OF K.M.                Johnston County
                                No. 05 J 17

    Appeal by respondent from orders entered 6 June 2005 and 14 June 2005 by Judge Resson Faircloth in Johnston County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 March 2006.

    Jennifer S. O'Connor for petitioner-appellee Johnston County Department of Social Services.

    James D. Johnson, Jr., for Guardian ad Litem.

    Peter Wood for respondent-appellant.

    CALABRIA, Judge.

    Cedric S. (“respondent”) appeals from orders of the trial court, adjudicating K.M. (“the minor child”) abused and dependent and placing the minor child in the custody of the maternal grandmother. We dismiss for failure to comply with the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
    Gwendolyn M. (“Gwendolyn M.”) and respondent are the biological parents of the minor child. On the evening of 17 January 2005 and the morning of 18 January 2005, respondent was the primary caregiver of the minor child. Johnston County Department of Social Services (“D.S.S.”) first became involved with the minor child on 18 January 2005 when respondent contacted local emergency medical services (“E.M.S.”) and reported that the minor child was unresponsive. The trial court found that respondent reported thefollowing incidents leading up to his discovery of the minor child's injury: “he moved the child in a figure eight motion in [a] walker [then] he removed the child from the walker and placed her on the bed and left a bottle with the child. [He] heard a noise from the bedroom and went back to check on the child and found the child nonresponsive and then called E.M.S.” Respondent additionally reported that the minor child had fallen off the sofa on 17 January 2005; however, the trial court found, “the child acted normal after the fall, including but not limited to sleeping regularly, taking bottles regularly[,] and interacting with the mother and father.” Additionally, the trial court found, “the father provided several possible explanations for the juvenile's injuries.”
    After considering the testimony of Dr. Desmon Runyan (“Dr. Runyan”), the trial court found, “the child suffered multiple massive retinal hemorrhages at all levels and subdural and subarchnoid hematomas, which has resulted [in] permanent damage in frontal sections of the juvenile's brain,” “the child is blind in one eye as a result of her injuries,” and “the child suffered from Shaken Baby Syndrome.” The trial court also found,
        [t]he extent of this child's specific injuries will not be known until the child gets to be an older age[;] however, it was the opinion of Dr. Runyon that this child is a high candidate to suffer from cerebral palsy and other developmental and physical diseases as a result of the injuries. It is further the opinion of Dr. Runyan that the infarctions on the child's brain will not regrow, that the front part of the child's brain is dead. It was the expert opinion of Dr. Runyan that theinjuries suffered by the juvenile were nonaccidental and were serious injuries.
    
    Based on these and other related findings, the trial court entered an order, adjudicating the juvenile abused within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(1) (2005) and dependent within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(9) (2005). The trial court subsequently conducted a dispositional hearing and entered an order, determining that it was in the best interests of the minor child that she be placed in the custody of the maternal grandmother. Respondent appeals.
    On appeal, we decline to reach respondent's assignments of error because he has failed to properly preserve them for appellate review. North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure 10(c)(1) (2006) provides, in relevant part:
        A listing of the assignments of error upon which an appeal is predicated shall be stated at the conclusion of the record on appeal, in short form without argument, and shall be separately numbered. 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. An assignment of error is sufficient if it directs the attention of the appellate court to the particular error about which the question is made with clear and specific record or transcript references.

(Emphasis added). As in Munn v. North Carolina State University, __ N.C. __, 626 S.E.2d 270 (2006), rev'g per curiam for the reasons in __ N.C. App. __, 617 S.E.2d 335 (2005) (Jackson, J. dissenting), “Plaintiff makes no attempt to direct the attention of this Court to any portion of the record on appeal or to thetranscript with any references thereto. As such[,] his appeal must be dismissed for failure to follow our mandatory rules of Appellate Procedure.” Id. We must dismiss “even though such violations neither impede our comprehension of the issues nor frustrate the appellate process.” Id. (citations omitted).
    Dismissed.
    Judges McCULLOUGH and STEELMAN concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).     

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***