J. S08027/16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
TONY R. HARPER, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
v. :
:
JAWAD SALAMEH, M.D., CONEMAUGH :
MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, :
DR. JAMES TRETTER, JOHN DOE, :
SURGEON, AND ANNETT KOWALEWSKI : No. 1085 WDA 2015
Appeal from the Order May 28, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County
Civil Division No(s).: 2014-3969
BEFORE: STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 29, 2016
Appellant, Tony R. Harper, appeals pro se from the May 28, 2015
order entered in the Cambria County Court of Common Pleas, which
sustained the preliminary objections of Appellee, Jawad Salameh, M.D., and
dismissed Appellant’s complaint and any amendments thereto with
prejudice. We dismiss.
A detailed recitation of the facts of this case is unnecessary to our
disposition. Briefly, on June 12, 2015, Appellant timely filed a notice of
appeal from the trial court’s order sustaining Appellee’s preliminary
objections. On July 29, 2015, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a Rule
1925(b) statement within twenty-one (21) days. Appellant, therefore, had
until August 19, 2015, to file a timely 1925(b) statement pursuant to the
J. S08027/16
court’s order. The trial court also ordered that, “any issue not properly
included in the [s]tatement timely filed and served shall be deemed waived.”
Trial Court Order, 7/29/15.
Although Appellant was required to file his 1925(b) statement by
August 19, 2015, it was not until August 21, 2015, that the trial court
received a date-stamped 1925(b) statement and the Proof of Service dated
August 20, 2015. Additionally, Appellant even acknowledged that he filed
the 1925(b) statement late when he wrote to the Prothonotary of the trial
court, stating, “[m]y error of complained to the Superior Court has been
post marked on August 20, 2015.” Appellant’s Letter to Court of Common
Pleas Prothonotary, 8/26/15.
“[I]n order to preserve their claims for appellate review, appellants
must comply whenever the trial court orders them to file a Statement of
Matters Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.1925.” In re Estate
of Boyle, 77 A.3d 674, 677 (Pa. Super. 2013); Commonwealth v.
Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005) (quoting Commonwealth v. Lord,
719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998)). “In determining whether an appellant has
waived his issues on appeal based on non-compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925, it
is the trial court’s order that triggers an obligation under the rule, and,
therefore, we look first to the language of that order.” In re Estate of
Boyle, supra at 676.
-2-
J. S08027/16
Here, the trial court's Rule 1925(b) order, properly filed, docketed, and
served, directed Appellant to file a concise statement within 21 days, i.e. by
August 19, 2015. Because Appellant filed his concise statement on August
20, 2015, the statement was untimely and the issues raised therein are
waived. See In re Estate of Boyle, supra at 679 (concluding issues were
waived for failing to file a timely Rule 1925(b) statement).
In addition to filing an untimely Rule 1925(b) statement, Appellant
failed to comply with the briefing requirements set forth in Pa.R.A.P. 2111-
2119.
[A]ppellate briefs and reproduced records must materially
conform to the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.
This Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if the appellant
fails to conform to the requirements set forth in the
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497-98 (Pa. Super. 2005)
(internal citations omitted). See also Pa.R.A.P. 2111-2119 (setting forth in
detail the required content of appellate briefs). When a party’s brief fails to
conform to the requirements of the rules of appellate procedure, and the
defects are substantial, this Court may, in its discretion, quash or dismiss
the appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2101.1 See Estate of Lakatosh, 656 A.2d
1378 (Pa. Super 1995) (dismissing appeal for non-conformance).
1
Pa.R.A.P. provides:
Briefs and reproduced records shall conform in all material
respects with the requirements of these rules as nearly as
-3-
J. S08027/16
“Although this Court is willing to construe liberally materials filed by a
pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no special benefit upon an
appellant.” Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 251-252 (Pa. Super.
2003). Accordingly, a pro se litigant must comply with the procedural rules
set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court. Id.
Our review of Appellant’s brief exposes substantial violations of the
Rules of Appellate Procedure: it does not contain a statement of jurisdiction,
a statement of the scope and standard of review, a statement of questions
involved, or a summary of Appellant’s argument. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1);
(3); (4); (6); 2114; 2116; and 2118. Although Appellant’s brief contains a
section labeled “Statement of the Case,” this section does not include a
statement of the form of action; a brief procedural history; a statement of
any prior determinations in the case; the names of the judge whose
determination Appellant seeks to have reviewed; or a condensed
chronological statement of the facts necessary to review the determination,
as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2117. See Pa.R.A.P. 2117. The argument section
of Appellant’s brief consists of five enumerated paragraphs completely
the circumstances of the particular case will admit,
otherwise they may be suppressed, and, if the defects are
in the brief or reproduced record of the appellant and are
substantial, the appeal or other matter may be quashed or
dismissed.
Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
-4-
J. S08027/16
devoid of, among other things, any citation to supporting authority or
reference to the record. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b); (c). “The Rules of
Appellate Procedure state unequivocally that each question an appellant
raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of pertinent authority.
Failure to do so constitutes waiver of the claim.” Giant Food Stores, LLC
v. THF Silver Spring Dev., L.P., 959 A.2d 438, 444 (Pa. Super. 2008)
(citations omitted); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) and (b).
In the instant matter, Appellant has failed to comply in substantial
respects with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Because of the considerable
defects, we are unable to perform effective appellate review.
Based on the foregoing, we are constrained to dismiss Appellant’s
appeal for failure to comply with our Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Appeal dismissed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/29/2016
-5-