Opinion
J-A11031-18 No. 1252 MDA 2017
04-23-2018
ELIZABETH KINARD Appellee v. ERIK KINARD Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
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.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
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).
"[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.
Appellant's application for continuance, filed April 18, 2018, is dismissed as moot.
Case stricken from argument list. Appeal dismissed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 04/23/18