Joyce Rowley v. City of North Myrtle Beach, No. 09-1993 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1993 JOYCE E. ROWLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH; JOEL DAVIS,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 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. Decided: MICHAEL, Circuit December 16, 2009 Judges, and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In the these district consolidated court s orders appeals, adopting Joyce appeals magistrate the Rowley judge s report and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-TLWTER; 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 court s of the orders, depositions, proceedings and specifically warranted willful her dismissal failure and an disregard to order appear that she attorneys fees and costs related to the depositions. considered issued Rowley s during the arguments course of concerning the other proceedings of for pay We have court and the orders 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
