J-A30022-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
WILLIAM JAMES ACKERMAN IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
MERCY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
Appellant No. 753 WDA 2017
Appeal from the Order entered May 15, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Civil Division at No: AR 17-1650
BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY STABILE, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 22, 2017
Appellant, William James Ackerman, pro se appeals from the May 15,
2017 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, dismissing
his complaint pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 233.1. Upon review, we affirm.
Briefly, following a hearing on Appellee’s motion, the trial court
dismissed the complaint pursuant to Rule 233.1 and barred Appellant from
filing any future actions against Appellee in Allegheny County without leave
of court.
Appellant timely appealed. On June 2, 2017, the trial court ordered
Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement within 30 days. Appellant
failed to comply. Accordingly, on August 1, 2017, the trial court entered an
order noting that “any issue that [Appellant] may have taken with [the May
J-A30022-17
15, 2017 order] appears to have been waived.” Trial Court Order, 8/1/17 at
1.
On appeal, Appellee advances two important reasons why the instant
appeal fails. First, Appellee notes that Appellant failed to file a Rule 1925(b)
statement. Second, Appellee notes that Appellant’s brief fails to conform in
any meaningful manner with our rules of appellate procedure. We agree on
both counts, but base our disposition here on Appellant’s failure to file a Rule
1925(b) statement.
In Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484 (Pa. 2011), our Supreme
Court explained:
Our jurisprudence is clear and well-settled, and firmly
establishes that: Rule 1925(b) sets out a simple bright-line rule,
which obligates an appellant to file and serve a Rule 1925(b)
statement, when so ordered; any issues not raised in a Rule
1925(b) statement will be deemed waived; the courts lack the
authority to countenance deviations from the Rule’s terms; the
Rule’s provisions are not subject to ad hoc exceptions or
selective enforcement; appellants and their counsel are
responsible for complying with the Rule’s requirements; Rule
1925 violations may be raised by the appellate court sua
sponte.
Id. at 494.
Accordingly, we conclude that Appellant has waived all issues in his
appeal because he failed to file a Rule 1925(b) statement, as ordered by the
trial court.
Order affirmed. Case stricken from argument list.
-2-
J-A30022-17
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/22/2017
-3-