Opinion
22-P-531
12-06-2022
RAYMOND WILSON, THIRD v. THE STOP & SHOP SUPERMARKET COMPANY, LLC.
Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass.App.Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as 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 23.0 or 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).
The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The plaintiff, Raymond Wilson, III, appeals from a decision of the Appellate Division of the District Court dismissing his appeal. For the reasons delineated below, we affirm.
On May 8, 2017, Wilson filed a personal injury action in the District Court, alleging that he hit his head on a "cheap gadget display put in a bad position hanging outward over a lower shelf" at the defendant's premises. The matter was dismissed by a District Court judge on June 30, 2017, due to the plaintiff's failure to appear; the dismissal was vacated by the same judge on July 26, 2017; and the matter was again dismissed by a different District Court judge on or about August 30, 2017, for failure to state a claim under Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974). Judgment of dismissal entered for the defendant on September 1, 2017. The plaintiff noticed an appeal 1 to the Appellate Division, and also pursued relief in various other courts. On May 5, 2022, the Appellate Division issued a comprehensive decision holding, inter alia, that the plaintiff "failed to perfect his appeal of [the District Court] judgment"; "failed to file a Dist./Mun. Cts. R. A. D. A. 14 (b) motion for enlargement of time to file his Rule 8A, 8B, or 8C designation"; submitted a brief consisting of conclusory statements that did not rise to the level of proper argument before the Appellate Division; and failed to raise arguments that could warrant relief on the merits. Although unclear from his filings, the plaintiff now appears to appeal from the decision of the Appellate Division dismissing his appeal.
For the reasons set forth in the Appellate Division's thoughtful and thorough opinion, we affirm. We further note that it is well established in this Commonwealth that an appellant's brief must contain "the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons therefor, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies." Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (9), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1628 (2019). The rule "is more than a 'mere technicality. It is founded on the sound principle that the right of a party to have this court consider a point entails a duty; that duty is to assist the court with argument and appropriate citation of authority.'" Cameron v. Carelli, 2 39 Mass.App.Ct. 81, 85-86 (1995), quoting Lolos v. Berlin, 338 Mass. 10, 14 (1958). In the present case, the plaintiff failed to articulate in his brief the precise issues on appeal and failed to support his claims with citation to any legal authority whatsoever. Accordingly, his claims do not rise to the level of appellate argument and are deemed waived. See Carelli, supra at 8 6.
We decline the defendant's request for sanctions. We note, however, that future filings in this Court by the plaintiff that lack citation to any legal authority may result in the imposition of sanctions.
Decision of the Appellate Division affirmed. 3