UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1993
JOYCE E. ROWLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH; JOEL DAVIS, Individually and in
his capacity as employee of the City of North Myrtle Beach;
KEVIN BLAYTON, Individually and in his capacity as employee
of the City of North Myrtle Beach; JOHN SMITHSON,
Individually and in his capacity as employee of the City of
North Myrtle Beach; PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FOR
THE CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH; CATHY E. MADDOCK, Personal
Representative of the Estate of Douglas Maddock, personal
representative Douglas Maddock,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-2001
JOYCE E. ROWLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, CITY OF; JOHN SMITHSON, City Manager,
Individually and in his representative capacity as employee
of the City of North Myrtle Beach; JOEL DAVIS, Assistant
City Manager, Individually and in his representative
capacity as employee of the City of North Myrtle Beach;
KEVIN BLAYTON, Public Works Director, Individually and in
his representative capacity as employee of the City of North
Myrtle Beach; PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY
OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH; CATHY E. MADDOCK, Personal
Representative of the Estate of Douglas Maddock, personal
representative Douglas Maddock,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District
Judge. (4:07-cv-01636-TLW; 4:06-cv-01873-TLW)
Submitted: December 2, 2009 Decided: December 16, 2009
Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joyce E. Rowley, Appellant Pro Se. Derwood Lorraine Aydlette,
III, Christopher Wofford Johnson, GIGNILLIAT, SAVITZ & BETTIS,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Joyce Rowley appeals
the district court’s orders adopting the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation and dismissing her two consolidated
cases. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s
orders and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court.
See Rowley v. City of N. Myrtle Beach, Nos. 4:06-cv-01873-TLW-
TER; 4:07-cv-01636-TLW-TER (D.S.C. Aug. 21, 2009). We agree
with the district court that Rowley’s dilatory conduct during
the course of the proceedings and willful disregard of the
court’s orders, specifically her failure to appear for
depositions, warranted dismissal and an order that she pay
attorneys’ fees and costs related to the depositions. We have
considered Rowley’s arguments concerning other court orders
issued during the course of the proceedings and find her
arguments to be without merit and that, in most instances, the
issues related to those orders had no bearing on the court’s
decision to dismiss the cases. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3