J-A28007-17 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

MARGUERITE DUTTON 

Appellant

v.

NIKKISHA P. MCCREA, M.D.

Appellee

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

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

- 2 -

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 refile 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. 

____________________________________________

1 The order granting Appellee’s motion to dismiss also barred Appellant from 

pursuing additional litigation against Appellee. 
J-A28007-17

- 3 -

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. 
J-A28007-17

- 4 -

supra. Accordingly, we affirm.

Order affirmed. Case is stricken from the argument list.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/30/2017