UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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 
3 

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-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 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