
    Aura Labro KARAGIANNOPOULOS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CITY OF LOWELL, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 08-1682.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 8, 2008.
    Decided: Dec. 12, 2008.
    Aura LaBro Karagiannopoulos, Appellant Pro Se. Martha Raymond Thompson, Stott, Hollowell, Palmer & Windham, Gastonia, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   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 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.  