Dutton, K. v. Timbers, T.

J-A19020-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
KELLY DUTTON, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
TENILLE TIMBERS : No. 2420 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered July 20, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No(s): 150702505
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED July 3, 2017
Appellant, Kelly Dutton, appeals pro se from the July 20, 2016 Order,
entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, granting
summary judgment in favor of Tenille Timbers and dismissing Appellant’s
Complaint. We dismiss this appeal.
The facts are not relevant to our disposition. Instantly, we recognize:
[A]ppellate briefs and reproduced records must materially
conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of
Appellate Procedure. This Court may quash or dismiss an appeal
if the appellant fails to conform to the requirements set forth in
the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497-98 (Pa. Super. 2005)
(internal citations omitted). See also Pa.R.A.P. 2111-2119 (discussing
required content of appellate briefs and addressing specific requirements of
each subsection of brief on appeal). An appellant’s pro se status does not
J-A19020-17
relieve him or her of the obligation to follow the Rules of Appellate
Procedure. Jiricko v. Geico Ins. Co., 947 A.2d 206, 213 n.11 (Pa. Super.
2008).
To properly develop an issue for our review, Appellant bears the
burden of ensuring that his argument section includes citations to pertinent
authorities as well as discussion and analysis of the authorities. See
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a); Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa.
Super. 2007) (“[I]t is an appellant’s duty to present arguments that are
sufficiently developed for our review. The brief must support the claims with
pertinent discussion, with references to the record and with citations to legal
authorities.” (citations omitted)).
As this Court has made clear, we “will not act as counsel and will not
develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.” Hardy, supra at 771 (citation
omitted). Where defects in a brief “impede our ability to conduct meaningful
appellate review, we may dismiss the appeal entirely or find certain issues to
be waived.” Id. (citations omitted).
Appellant’s Brief is woefully inadequate. It does not contain a
statement of the case meeting the requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 2117, an
averment that the trial court did not order Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) Statement, or the trial court’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion. See
Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a), (4), (5), (10), (11), and (b). The Statement of Questions
-2-
J-A19020-17
involved is unacceptably vague and inadequate.1 Most significantly,
although Appellant’s Brief contains a three-paragraph section entitled
“Argument,” Appellant did not develop any argument therein with citation to
the record or to case law in support of his claim. It is axiomatic that issues
that are not developed in the argument section of an appellate brief are
waived. Harkins v. Calumet Realty Co., 614 A.2d 699, 703 (Pa. Super.
1992).
Appellant’s failure to adhere to the Rules of Appellate Procedure and to
develop his claims with citation to the record and to legal authorities
prevents this Court from conducting meaningful appellate review. Therefore,
we conclude Appellant has waived his issues. Accordingly, we dismiss this
appeal.
Appeal dismissed. Case stricken from the argument list.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/3/2017
____________________________________________
1
Appellant’s Statement of Questions Involved provides: “When the court
dismissed plaintiff’s case, were appellant rights violated? Appellant’s Brief at
(unpaginated) 2 (verbatim).
-3-
J-A19020-17
-4-