Opinion
J-S66039-15 No. 860 WDA 2015
11-19-2015
HEATHER R. BRIDGE v. JAD M. MCGUINNESS, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered May 7, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County, Domestic Relations, at No(s): DRS 0016103-PACSES CASE ID 694105471 BEFORE: OLSON, STABILE, and STRASSBURGER, JJ. JUDGMENT ORDER BY STRASSBURGER, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Jad M. McGuinness (McGuinness) pro se appeals from an order that found him in contempt of a child support order. We dismiss this appeal.
McGuinness is in arrears in the amount of $27,223.26 on a child support order. On May 7, 2015, after a hearing, the trial court found him in contempt of the child support order. The court directed that McGuinness may be incarcerated for no more than six months. The court set McGuinness' purge amount at $8,218.72. McGuinness timely filed a notice of appeal.
We are mindful of the fact that [McGuinness] is proceeding pro se in this appeal. Nevertheless, this pro se representation does not relieve [him of his] duty to properly raise and develop [his] appealable claims. [This Court has explained] the following:
While this [C]ourt is willing to [construe liberally] materials filed by a pro se litigant, we note that appellant is not entitled to any particular advantage because []he lacks legal training. As our [S]upreme [C]ourt has explained,
Smathers v. Smathers , 670 A.2d 1159, 1160 (Pa. Super. 1996) (citations omitted)."any layperson choosing to represent [himself] in a legal proceeding must, to some reasonable extent, assume the risk that [his] lack of expertise and legal training will prove [his] undoing."
Appellate briefs must conform in all material respects to the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. This Court has the discretion to dismiss an appeal when the defects in an appellate brief are substantial. Id. McGuinness' brief to this Court contains substantial defects. Indeed, in submitting a document of cut-and-paste Westlaw headnotes with copies of random documents attached to it, his brief fails to conform meaningfully to any of the Rules of Appellate Procedure which govern appellate briefs. Consequently, we dismiss this appeal.
Appeal dismissed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/19/2015