Metts, C. v. Martin, C. ( 2014 )

J-A29040-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
CINDY LOU METTS, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
CHAD E. MARTIN, :
:
Appellant : No. 459 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered March 10, 2014,
In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County,
Civil Division, at No(s): No. 261 of 2014, GD
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., ALLEN, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 24, 2014
Chad E. Martin (Appellant) appeals pro se from the order which
granted Appellee Cindy Lou Metts’s request for a final Protection from Abuse
(PFA) order pursuant to the Protection from Abuse Act (the Act), 23 Pa.C.S.
§§ 6101-6122.
Upon our review of Appellant’s brief, we find it to be patently
defective, as it fails in numerous respects to comport with Pa.R.A.P. 2111
through 2119. Specifically, Appellant has failed to include in his brief a
statement of questions involved, a statement of the case, a summary of the
argument, or an argument section. Moreover, Appellant makes no citation
to relevant authorities or to the record.
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A29040-14
Rule 2101 grants us the authority to dismiss an appeal when the
defects in a brief are substantial. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. The fact that Appellant is
pro se does not excuse his complete failure to comply with the Rules of
Appellate Procedure. While “this Court is willing to construe liberally
materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no special
benefit upon an appellant.” Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 251-
52 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted). Nor does it entitle him to have this
Court advocate on his behalf. Commonwealth v. Rivera, 685 A.2d 1011,
1013 (Pa. Super. 1996). “When issues are not properly raised and
developed in briefs, [and] when the briefs are wholly inadequate to present
specific issues for review[, this] Court will not consider the merits thereof.”
Id. (citation omitted).
Accordingly, because Appellant has failed to comply substantially with
the relevant Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss his appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/24/2014
-2-