J-A28007-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
MARGUERITE DUTTON : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
v. :
:
NIKKISHA P. MCCREA, M.D. :
:
Appellee : No. 555 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Order Entered January 20, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No(s): September Term, 2016 No. 0014
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and DUBOW, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED OCTOBER 30, 2017
Appellant, Marguerite Dutton, appeals pro se from the order entered in
the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the motion
to dismiss of Appellee, Nikkisha P. McCrea, M.D., in this medical malpractice
action. On September 4, 2016, Appellant filed a pro se medical malpractice
complaint against Appellee, alleging negligent treatment by Appellee from
May 5, 2013 through June 17, 2013. Appellee filed preliminary objections
on September 23, 2016, based on, inter alia, improper service. Appellee
also filed a motion to dismiss on September 27, 2016, per Pa.R.C.P. 233.1
(explaining court can grant motion to dismiss where pro se plaintiff is
alleging same or related claims which pro se plaintiff raised in prior action
against same or related defendants and claims have already been resolved
in court proceeding). Appellant responded to the preliminary objections and
J-A28007-17
motion to dismiss on October 13, 2016. On November 2, 2016, the court
sustained Appellee’s preliminary objection for improper service and
dismissed the remaining objections without prejudice. The court also
dismissed Appellee’s motion to dismiss without prejudice to her right to re-
file that motion once service was perfected. The court gave Appellant
twenty days to perfect service.
On November 18, 2016, Appellant served her complaint on Appellee.
Appellee filed preliminary objections on November 22, 2016, and another
motion to dismiss per Rule 233.1. On December 8, 2016, Appellant filed
separate motions for extension of time to file a certificate of merit and an
amended complaint. Appellant responded to Appellee’s preliminary
objections and motion to dismiss on December 12, 2016. On January 20,
2017, the court entered four orders: denying Appellant’s motion to extend
the time for filing a certificate of merit, denying Appellant’s motion for
extension of time to file an amended complaint, sustaining Appellee’s
preliminary objections, and granting Appellee’s motion to dismiss the
complaint with prejudice.1 Appellant timely filed a pro se notice of appeal on
January 31, 2017. No Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement was ordered or filed.
Preliminarily, appellate briefs must conform in all material respects to
the briefing requirements in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.
____________________________________________
1The order granting Appellee’s motion to dismiss also barred Appellant from
pursuing additional litigation against Appellee.
-2-
J-A28007-17
Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Where an appellant fails to raise or develop her issues on
appeal properly, or where her brief is wholly inadequate to present specific
issues for review, this Court will not consider the merits of the claims raised.
Butler v. Illes, 747 A.2d 943 (Pa.Super. 2000) (holding appellant’s failure
to cogently explain why trial court abused its discretion or committed error
of law constitutes waiver of claim on appeal; this Court cannot act as
counsel for appellant and craft argument on her behalf). See also In re
Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207 (Pa.Super. 2010), appeal denied, 610 Pa. 600, 20
A.3d 489 (2011) (stating although this Court is willing to liberally construe
materials filed by pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit
upon appellant; any person choosing to represent herself in legal proceeding
must, to reasonable extent, assume her lack of expertise and legal training
will be her undoing).
Instantly, Appellant’s appellate brief contains only a three-sentence
argument section with no citation whatsoever to supporting legal authority.
See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (stating argument section shall be divided into as
many sections as there are questions presented, followed by discussion and
citations to pertinent legal authorities). Appellant’s failure to develop her
issue on appeal in a meaningful way compels waiver.2 See id.; Butler,
____________________________________________
2 Moreover, the record makes clear Appellant unsuccessfully litigated the
same claims against Appellee in at least one prior action. Thus, the court
properly granted Appellee’s motion to dismiss under Pa.R.C.P. 233.1.
-3-
J-A28007-17
supra. Accordingly, we affirm.
Order affirmed. Case is stricken from the argument list.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/30/2017
-4-
Dutton, M. v. McCrea, N.
Combined Opinion