J-S22006-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
CREA EXCAVATING, INC. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JOSEPH A. PIOLE
Appellant No. 644 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment Entered April 4, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Civil Division at No(s): GD-11-010572
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED June 1, 2015
Appellant, Joseph A. Piole, appeals pro se from the judgment entered
in favor of Appellee, Crea Excavating, Inc., on April 4, 2014, in the Court of
Common Pleas of Allegheny County. We dismiss the appeal.
The pro se brief Appellant has submitted to this Court substantially
fails to conform to the basic requirements of appellate advocacy. Appellant’s
Brief does not include: (1) a statement of jurisdiction; (2) statements of the
scope and standard of review; (3) a statement of the questions involved;
and (4) a copy of the Rule 1925(b) statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a).
Most notably, the argument section of Appellant’s 35-page appellate
brief contains only a single citation to supporting case law, without
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S22006-15
elaboration or analysis. See Appellant’s Brief at 18. Correspondingly, there
is no developed legal argument in the entirety of Appellant’s brief. “The
Rules of Appellate Procedure state unequivocally that each question an
appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of pertinent
authority.” Eichman v. McKeon, 824 A.2d 305, 319 (Pa. Super. 2003).
Furthermore, “[w]hen issues are not properly raised and developed in briefs,
when the briefs are wholly inadequate to present specific issues for review[,]
a Court will not consider the merits thereof.” Branch Banking and Trust
v. Gesiorski, 904 A.2d 939, 942-943 (Pa. Super. 2006).
“While this court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro
se litigant, we note that appellant is not entitled to any particular advantage
because she lacks legal training. As our supreme court has explained, any
layperson choosing to represent herself in a legal proceeding must, to some
reasonable extent, assume the risk that her lack of expertise and legal
training will prove her undoing.” Gesiorski, 904 A.2d at 942 (citation
omitted). In the present case, even a liberal construction of Appellant’s brief
cannot remedy the serious inadequacies. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal
due to the substantial briefing defects in Appellant's brief, which hampered
our ability to conduct meaningful appellate review. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
Appeal dismissed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
-2-
J-S22006-15
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/1/2015
-3-