Kinard, E. v. Kinard, E.

J-A11031-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
ELIZABETH KINARD : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
ERIK KINARD :
:
Appellant : No. 1252 MDA 2017
Appeal from the Order Entered June 19, 2017
in the Court of Common Pleas of York County
Civil Division at No.: 2016-SU-001079-04
BEFORE: STABILE, J., NICHOLS, J., and PLATT*, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PLATT, J.: FILED APRIL 23, 2018
Appellant, Erik Kinard, appeals pro se from the trial court’s order in this
ejectment action, granting the motion of Elizabeth Kinard, Appellee, for
judgment on the pleadings. We dismiss Appellant’s appeal based on his
deficient brief.
Appellant has filed a non-compliant and substantially deficient brief for
our review. Among numerous defects, he fails to present a statement of
jurisdiction, order in question, statement of questions, statement of the case,
summary of argument, or even a separately identified argument. (See
Appellant’s Brief, at 3-7); Pa.R.A.P. 2111. Appellant’s presented argument
provides no legal discussion or citation of pertinent authority, and no
references to anything in the record. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a)-(c).
____________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A11031-18
“[T]his Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to
conform substantially to the briefing requirements set forth in the
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.” Karn v. Quick & Reilly Inc.,
912 A.2d 329, 335 (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal denied, 931 A.2d 659 (Pa. 2007)
(citations omitted); see Pa.R.A.P. 2101. It is particularly important for an
appellant to include a statement of questions involved. See Branch Banking
& Tr. v. Gesiorski, 904 A.2d 939, 942 (Pa. Super. 2006). Furthermore,
. . . [A]lthough 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. Accordingly, a pro se litigant
must comply with the procedural rules set forth in the
Pennsylvania Rules of the Court. This Court may quash or dismiss
an appeal if an appellant fails to conform with the requirements
set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 251-52 (Pa. Super. 2003), appeal
denied, 879 A.2d 782 (Pa. 2005) (citations omitted).
Here, Appellant’s pro se appellate brief falls well below the standard for
compliance with our Rules of Appellate Procedure, and in doing so, precludes
our meaningful appellate review. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111. Accordingly, we
dismiss his appeal.1
Case stricken from argument list. Appeal dismissed.
____________________________________________
1Appellant’s application for continuance, filed April 18, 2018, is dismissed as
moot.
-2-
J-A11031-18
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 04/23/18
-3-