J-A30009-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
RAHEEM MUHAMMAD IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
DAVID A. NORRIS; CARL HOFFIELD;
DAVID CURLEY; RAYMOND URBASH; D
AND D AUTO SALVAGE YARDS; TROY
HILL GARAGE; ALL FOREIGN AUTO
PARTS; WEST PENN MOTOR CLUB; AAA
OF PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA;
AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION OF
AMERICA; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee No. 1660 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment Entered August 24, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Civil Division at No(s): AR 14-000711
BEFORE: MUNDY, J., JENKINS, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY MUNDY, J.: FILED OCTOBER 14, 2015
Appellant, Raheem Muhammad, appeals pro se from the August 24,
2014 judgment entered in favor of Appellees David A. Norris, Carl Hoffield,
David Curley, Raymond Urbash, D and D Auto Salvage Yards, Troy Hill
Garage, All Foreign Auto Parts, West Penn Motor Club, AAA of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania Automobile Association of America, the Pennsylvania
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A30009-15
Department of Transportation, and the Commonwealth. After careful
review, we dismiss this appeal.
Generally, appellate briefs are required to conform to the Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101. “This Court may … dismiss an
appeal if the appellant fails to conform to the requirements set forth in the
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.” In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207,
1211 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 20 A.3d 489 (Pa.
2011). Generally, this Court will construe pro se materials liberally, but “pro
se status confers no special benefit on an appellant.” Id. at 1211-1212
(citation omitted).
In this case, the argument section of Appellant’s brief is five pages
mostly of references to the reproduced record and bald conclusions that are
all bolded, underlined, and in all capital letters. See generally Appellant’s
Brief 11-15. We note that Appellant has included one block quote to
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 400 with a one-sentence conclusion,
but without any development or argument as to why the trial court erred in
this particular case. It is axiomatic that this Court will not consider issues
where the appellant has not developed the issue in any meaningful way. 1 In
re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 209 (Pa. Super. 2012), appeal denied,
____________________________________________
1
Although Appellant also has a block quote to Pennsylvania Code of Judicial
Conduct Canon 3(C), it is axiomatic the judicial canons do not have the force
of law. Reilly v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 489 A.2d 1291, 1298 (Pa. 1985).
-2-
J-A30009-15
69 A.3d 603 (Pa. 2013). Furthermore, “[t]his Court will not act as counsel
and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.”
Commonwealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327, 331 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation
omitted), appeal denied, 29 A.3d 796 (Pa. 2011).
Based on the foregoing, we conclude the defects in Appellant’s brief
are substantial and preclude this Court from conducting any meaningful
appellate review. Accordingly, we elect to exercise our discretion pursuant
to Rule 2101 and dismiss this appeal.2
Appeal dismissed. Case stricken from argument list. Application for
relief denied as moot.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/14/2015
____________________________________________
2
In light of our disposition, we deny Appellant’s application for relief filed
October 8, 2015 as moot.
-3-