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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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, J awad 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 Appe llee’s preliminary objections. On July 29, 2015, the trial court orde red Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) statement within twenty-one (21) days. App ellant, therefore, had until August 19, 2015, to file a timely 1925(b) sta tement pursuant to theJ. S08027/16

- 2

-

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 P roof of Service dated August 20, 2015. Additionally, Appellant even ackn owledged that he filed the 1925(b) statement late when he wrote to the Pro thonotary of the trial court, stating, “[m]y error of complained to the Su perior Court has been post marked on August 20, 2015.” Appellant’s Lette r 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 whe ther 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 obligat ion under the rule, and, therefore, we look first to the language of that or der.” In re Estate of Boyle , supra at 676.J. S08027/16

- 3

-

Here, the trial court's Rule 1925 ( b ) order, properly filed, docketed, and served, directed Appellant to file a concise statem ent within 21 days , i.e. by August 19, 2015. Because Appellant filed his conci se 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) st atement). In addition to filing an untimely Rule 1925(b) sta tement, Appellant failed to comply with the briefing requirements set forth in Pa.R.A.P. 2111-

2119. [A]ppellate briefs and reproduced records must mate rially

conform to the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Proc edure. This Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if the ap pellant fails to conform to the requirements set forth in t he 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 appella te procedure, and the defects are substantial, this Court may, in its dis cretion, 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-co nformance).

1 Pa.R.A.P. provides:

Briefs and reproduced records shall conform in all material respects with the requirements of these rules as ne arly asJ. S08027/16

- 4

-

“Although this Court is willing to construe libera lly 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 substantia l 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 Appe llant’s brief contains a section labeled “Statement of the Case,” this secti on 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 r eview 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 pa ragraphs completely

the circumstances of the particular case will admit , otherwise they may be suppressed, and, if the defec ts are in the brief or reproduced record of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal or other matter may be quas hed or dismissed. Pa.R.A.P. 2101.J. S08027/16

- 5

-

devoid of, among other things, any citation to supp orting authority or

reference to the record. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b); (c). “The Rules of Appellate Procedure state unequivocally that each q uestion an appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and analysi s 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 com ply in substantial respects with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Be cause of the considerable defects, we are unable to perform effective appella te review. Based on the foregoing, we are constrained to dism iss Appellant’s appeal for failure to comply with our Rules of Appe llate Procedure. Appeal dismissed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 2/29/2016