J-A30009-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

RAHEEM MUHAMMAD IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant

v.

DAVID A. NORRIS; CARL HOFFIELD; 

DAVID CURLEY; RAYMOND URBASH; D 

AND D AUTO SALVAGE YARDS; TROY 

HILL GARAGE; ALL FOREIGN AUTO 

PARTS; WEST PENN MOTOR CLUB; AAA 

OF PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA; 

AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION OF 

AMERICA; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT 

OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee No. 1660 WDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment Entered August 24, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Civil Division at No(s): AR 14-000711

BEFORE: MUNDY, J., JENKINS, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY MUNDY, J.: FILED OCTOBER 14, 2015

Appellant, Raheem Muhammad, appeals pro se from the August 24, 

2014 judgment entered in favor of Appellees David A. Norris, Carl Hoffield, 

David Curley, Raymond Urbash, D and D Auto Salvage Yards, Troy Hill 

Garage, All Foreign Auto Parts, West Penn Motor Club, AAA of Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania Automobile Association of America, the Pennsylvania 

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A30009-15

- 2 -

Department of Transportation, and the Commonwealth. After careful 

review, we dismiss this appeal.

Generally, appellate briefs are required to conform to the Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101. “This Court may ... dismiss an 

appeal if the appellant fails to conform to the requirements set forth in the 

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.” In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207, 

1211 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 20 A.3d 489 (Pa. 

2011). Generally, this Court will construe pro se materials liberally, but “pro 

se status confers no special benefit on an appellant.” Id. at 1211-1212 

(citation omitted).

In this case, the argument section of Appellant’s brief is five pages 

mostly of references to the reproduced record and bald conclusions that are 

all bolded, underlined, and in all capital letters. See generally Appellant’s 

Brief 11-15. We note that Appellant has included one block quote to 

Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 400 with a one-sentence conclusion, 

but without any development or argument as to why the trial court erred in 

this particular case. It is axiomatic that this Court will not consider issues 

where the appellant has not developed the issue in any meaningful way.1 In 

re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 209 (Pa. Super. 2012), appeal denied, 

____________________________________________

1 Although Appellant also has a block quote to Pennsylvania Code of Judicial 

Conduct Canon 3(C), it is axiomatic the judicial canons do not have the force 

of law. Reilly v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 489 A.2d 1291, 1298 (Pa. 1985).
J-A30009-15

- 3 -

69 A.3d 603 (Pa. 2013). Furthermore, “[t]his Court will not act as counsel 

and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.” 

Commonwealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327, 331 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation 

omitted), appeal denied, 29 A.3d 796 (Pa. 2011).

Based on the foregoing, we conclude the defects in Appellant’s brief 

are substantial and preclude this Court from conducting any meaningful 

appellate review. Accordingly, we elect to exercise our discretion pursuant 

to Rule 2101 and dismiss this appeal.2

Appeal dismissed. Case stricken from argument list. Application for 

relief denied as moot.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/14/2015

____________________________________________

2

In light of our disposition, we deny Appellant’s application for relief filed 

October 8, 2015 as moot.