Opinion
C.A. No. 02A-02-009 HLA
Date Submitted: July 1, 2002
Date Decided: July 15, 2002
UPON APPELLANT'S APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
AFFIRMED.
Peter M. Texiera, III, Northeast, Maryland, Appellant (pro se) — Defendant below.
Michael J. Goodrick, Esq., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Appellee — Plaintiff below.
ORDER
This 15th day of July 2002 upon review of the documents filed by the parties and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On March 30, 1999, Appellee — Plaintiff below Edward A. Tryon ("Appellee") filed a lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas ("CCP") seeking compensation for damage to personal property against Appellant — Defendant below Peter M. Texiera, III ("Appellant"). Initially Appellant was represented by an attorney, Michael Duggan, Esq. who duly filed an Answer to the Complaint. On June 2, 2000, Mr. Duggan was allowed to withdrawal from the case. On July 7, 2000, summary judgment was granted in favor of Appellee. Following an Inquisition Hearing on January 17, 2002, Appellee was awarded $32,950.00 in damages. Appellant filed this appeal on February 13, 2002.
(2) Appellant timely filed his documents in an attempt to comply with the Prothonotary's briefing schedule. Appellant's submissions do not constitute a brief. Pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 107(b) all briefs shall contain the following contents: a table of contents or index, a table of citations, statement of the case, statement of the questions involved and arguments divided into sections. Appellant's documents fail to comply with this rule. Pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 107(e) and 72(i) the Court has the discretion to dismiss a case that does not conform to the manner prescribed in the rule.
(3) Moreover, Appellant fails to allege that substantial evidence did not exist to support the factual findings of the trial court or that the court below erred as a matter of law. Pursuant to Delaware law, appeals in civil cases from the Court of Common Pleas to this Court are on the record and not de novo. This Court is limited to correcting errors of law and determining whether substantial evidence exists to support factual findings of the trial court. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Appellant's submissions invite the Court to make new factual findings by way of a jury trial.
See 10 Del. C. § 1326(c); Super.Ct.Civ.R. 72.
Shahan v. Landing, 643 A.2d 135 7 (Del. 1994).
Oceanport Ind., Inc. v. Wilmington Stevedores, Inc., 636 A.2d 892, 899 (Del. 1994).
(4) The Court recognizes that some leniency may be given to a pro se party in order to assume that a case is fully heard. However, at a minimum a pro se appellant's "brief must be adequate to enable an appellate court to conduct a meaningful review of the merits of the appellant's claims." Here, Appellants brief fails to include required content in his brief and fails to raise issues of law which warrant reversal.
Hopkins v. Allenteck, C.A. No. 94A-05-026, 1994 WL 680076 (Del. Oct. 17, 1994) (ORDER) (citing Jackson v. UIAB, C.A. No. 85A-NO-9, Bifferato, J. (Del. Sept. 24, 1986) (Letter Op. at 3).
Power v. Myriad Services, Inc., No. 222, 1998, 1998 WL 665022 (Del. July 21 1998).
For the forgoing reasons the decision of the Court of Common Pleas is hereby AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.