Aura Labro Karagiannopoulos v. City of Lowell

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1682
AURA LABRO KARAGIANNOPOULOS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF LOWELL,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:05-cv-00401-FDW-DCK)
Submitted: October 8, 2008 Decided: December 12, 2008
Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aura LaBro Karagiannopoulos, Appellant Pro Se. Martha Raymond
Thompson, STOTT, HOLLOWELL, PALMER & WINDHAM, Gastonia, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Aura LaBro Karagiannopoulos appeals a district court
order and judgment granting summary judgment to the City of Lowell,
North Carolina, and dismissing her civil rights complaint. We note
Karagiannopoulos in her informal brief failed to challenge the
district court’s findings with respect to the order granting
summary judgment except for two meritless challenges to the court’s
decision to admit and review two items of evidence. As a result,
she has waived any review by this court of the merits of her
complaint and the district court’s findings leading to the
dismissal of her complaint. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Edwards v. City
of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999). We find
Karagiannopoulos’ various challenges to the court’s order denying
the motion for default judgment to be entirely without merit and,
insofar as she claims there was a conspiracy between the district
court and the City of Lowell, such claim is delusional. We find
the court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for
default judgment. Mitchell v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,
294 F.3d 1309, 1316 (11th Cir. 2002); White v. Gregory, 1 F.3d 267,
270 (4th Cir. 1993). The clear policy of the federal rules is to
encourage whenever possible the disposition of claims on the
merits. Reizakis v. Loy, 490 F.2d 1132, 1135 (4th Cir. 1974).
“[I]n situations where a party is not responsible for the fault of

-- 2 of 3 --

3
his attorney, dismissal may be invoked only in extreme
circumstances.” Id.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order and
judgment. 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 of 3 --