J-S09003-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
MARITZA R. NOVACK IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ANTHONY A. NOVACK
Appellant No. 861 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order April 17, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Civil Division at No(s): CI-02-11186
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and JENKINS, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED MARCH 07, 2016
Appellant, Anthony A. Novack, appeals pro se from the order entered
April 17, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County. We
affirm.
Our review of the pro se brief Appellant has submitted to this Court
reveals substantial defects. Of the ten issues Appellant has presented for our
review, only a single issue pertains directly to the Order under appeal.
Additionally, although the argument section of Appellant’s brief contains a
citation to a single statute, Appellant’s brief otherwise contains no citation to
supporting case law or other pertinent legal authority. Correspondingly,
there is no developed legal argument in the twelve pages devoted to
Appellant’s brief.
J-S09003-16
“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.” Branch Banking and Trust v.
Gesiorski, 904 A.2d 939, 942 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citations omitted).
“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.” Gesiorski, 904 A.2d
at 942-943 (citations omitted).
In the present case, even a liberal construction of Appellant’s brief
cannot remedy the serious inadequacies. As Appellant has chosen to proceed
pro se, he cannot now expect this Court to act as his attorney. We are
therefore compelled to find Appellant’s undeveloped issues waived on
appeal.
Order affirmed. Appellee’s Application to Quash Appeal is denied.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
-2-
J-S09003-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/7/2016
-3-