J-S35014-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

THE BANK OF NY MELLON FKA THE BANK 

OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE 

CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF CWABSN

INC., ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES,

SERIES 2006-19

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JASON E. ROMAN

Appellant No. 1817 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Order Entered May 15, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County

Civil Division at No(s): 2011-C-3755

BEFORE: MUNDY, J., OLSON, J., and PLATT, J.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY MUNDY, J.: FILED JUNE 03, 2015

Appellant, Jason E. Roman, appeals pro se from the May 15, 2014 

order entering an in rem judgment in mortgage foreclosure in favor of 

Appellee, Bank of New York Mellon, in the amount of $304,820.48 plus costs 

and interest. After careful review, we dismiss this appeal for failure to 

adhere to the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Appellate briefs must conform to the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Rule 2119 requires that the “argument shall be divided into 

as many parts as there are questions to be argued” and include “such 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S35014-15

- 2 -

discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent.” Id. at 

2119(a). “[W]here an appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a 

claim with citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any 

other meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is waived.” 

Umbelina v. Adams, 34 A.3d 151, 161 (Pa. Super. 2011), appeal denied, 

47 A.3d 848 (Pa. 2012), quoting In re W.H., 25 A.3d 330, 339 (Pa. Super. 

2011), appeal denied, 24 A.3d 364 (Pa. 2011); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). 

Further, “if the defects are in the brief of the appellant ... and are 

substantial, the appeal ... may be ... dismissed.” Pa.R.A.P. 2101.

Instantly, Appellant presents 11 issues on appeal, but fails to divide 

his argument section in accordance with Rule 2119(a). Additionally, 

Appellant’s brief is nine pages of single-spaced argument with no citations to 

authority or references to the record. Appellant’s Brief at 4-12.1 “This 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). Further, while 

this Court will construe pro se materials liberally, “pro se status confers no 

special benefit on an appellant.” Id. at 1211-1212.

Based on the foregoing, we deem these defects in Appellant’s brief to 

be sufficiently substantial to preclude any meaningful appellate review. 

____________________________________________

1 Because Appellant’s brief does not contain pagination, we have assigned 

each page a corresponding sequential number.
J-S35014-15

- 3 -

Accordingly, we elect to exercise our discretion under Rule 2101, and 

dismiss this appeal.2

Appeal dismissed. Motion for extension of time denied. Motion for 

continuance denied.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/3/2015

____________________________________________

2 We note that Appellant has filed two motions with this Court during the 

pendency of this appeal. The first, filed on May 8, 2015, requested an 

extension of time for Appellant to file a reply brief. The second, filed on May 

15, 2015, requested a continuance on the basis that the Appellees are 

“Masters of confusion” and that he “needs additional time to put forth an 

appeal.” Appellant’s Motion for Continuance, 5/15/15 at 1. We deny both of 

Appellant’s motions based on his failure to file an initial brief in compliance 

with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, as neither of these 

actions could cure this procedural defect.