Opinion
J-A03001-17 No. 730 MDA 2016
01-03-2017
LISA MORGAN, SURVIVING CO-EXECUTRIX AND CO-TRUSTEE UNDER THE LAST WILL OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, DECEASED Appellee v. ROBERT M. MUMMA, II Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered April 22, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
Civil Division at No(s): 2014-7108 BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and DUBOW, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.:
Robert M. Mumma, II, appeals from the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, sustaining Appellee's preliminary objections and dismissing Mumma's complaint with prejudice, based, inter alia, on the complaint's failure to conform to the rules of civil procedure.
Upon review of Mumma's appellate brief, we are constrained to quash the appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2101. In all respects, the brief fails to conform to the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Specifically, the brief does not contain: (1) a statement of jurisdiction; (2) a statement of the order or other determination in question; (3) a statement of the scope and standard of review; (4) a statement of the questions involved; (5) a statement of the case; or (6) a summary of the argument. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111. In addition, the "argument" section of Mumma's brief consists of two one-sentence paragraphs in which he baldly states, without citation to authority, that his complaint should not have been stricken with prejudice. Mumma fails to develop any legal argument whatsoever and, accordingly, has waived all appellate issues. See Commonwealth v. Clayton , 816 A.2d 217 (Pa. 2002) ("[I]t is a well settled principle of appellate jurisprudence that undeveloped claims are waived and unreviewable on appeal.").
Appeal quashed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 1/3/2017