Opinion
16-P-1077
04-03-2017
MOHAMMED AHMED HASSAN ABDALLAH OMRAN v. KAREN BISSON.
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 (2009), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The pro se plaintiff, Mohammed Ahmed Hassan Abdallah Omran, brought a complaint (not reproduced in the record appendix) against Karen Bisson, his former landlord. He asserts tort and contract claims arising from his allegation that she improperly gave police permission to search his room in her house. On February 9, 2016, a Superior Court judge allowed Bisson's motion to dismiss. Omran claims on appeal that it was error for the judge to grant Bisson's motion to dismiss without giving him the opportunity to amend the complaint in order to cure any deficiency.
Omran's two-page brief lacks citation to relevant authority and fails to rise to the level of appellate argument. See Mass.R.A.P. 16(a)(4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975). He also failed to file a proper record appendix containing the complaint, his proposed amended complaint, if any, the lease agreement, the hearing transcript, or the judgment. Accordingly, we are unable to evaluate his claim on appeal.
Pro se litigants are bound by the same rules and requirements as parties who are represented by counsel. See Commonwealth v. Jackson, 419 Mass. 716, 719-722 & n.3 (1995). It was Omran's responsibility to include in the appendix materials necessary to permit a review of his appeal, Mass.R.A.P. 18(a), as amended, 425 Mass. 1602 (1997). See Guardianship of Brandon, 424 Mass. 482, 497 n.22 (1997). We summarily affirm for an insufficient record appendix, see Cameron v. Carelli, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 81, 83-84 (1995) (record insufficient to review ruling on motion for directed verdict), and insufficient appellate argument, see Zora v. State Ethics Commn., 415 Mass. 640, 642 n.3 (1993) ("bald assertions of error, lacking legal argument and authority," do not rise to level of appellate argument); Donovan v. Gardner, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 595, 602 (2000) (conclusory statements in brief do not rise to level of appellate argument).
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Trainor, Henry & Sacks, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority. --------
/s/
Clerk Entered: April 3, 2017.