J-A19041-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

MICHAEL ROBINSON AND FRANCINE 

VARNER 

Appellants

v.

NOBODY'S CAT FOUNDATION

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 150 MDA 2024

Appeal from the Order Entered January 25, 2024

In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Civil Division at 

No(s): 2023-10941

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., LANE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: SEPTEMBER 25, 2024

Appellants Michael Robinson and Francine Varner file this pro se appeal 

from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County denying 

their motion for leave to file an appeal nunc pro tunc. As Appellants’ failure 

to comply with our Rules of Appellate Procedure prevents this Court from 

providing meaningful appellate review, we dismiss this appeal.

On September 21, 2023, Appellants filed a pro se civil complaint against 

Appellee Nobody’s Cat Foundation, a non-profit organization that operates a

spay/neuter clinic for felines. Appellants sought damages for Appellee’s 

alleged negligence in providing veterinary care to Appellants’ cat. 

The magisterial district court scheduled a hearing on November 3, 2023, 

which was subsequently rescheduled to November 8, 2023 after Appellee filed 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A19041-24

- 2 -

notice of its intent to enter a defense to the complaint. On November 8, 2023, 

the magisterial district court entered judgment in favor of Appellee after 

Appellants failed to appear at the scheduled hearing. 

On December 27, 2023, Appellants filed a notice of appeal to the Court 

of Common Pleas along with a “Motion to File Appeal Out of Time.” On 

December 28, 2023, Appellants filed a pro se amended complaint with the 

trial court. On January 17, 2024, Appellee filed a response arguing that 

Appellants should not be permitted to file an appeal nunc pro tunc, as 

Appellants did not offer an acceptable excuse for their failure to file a timely 

appeal. On January 25, 2024, the trial court entered an order denying the

motion and striking Appellants’ action. On January 29, 2024, Appellants filed 

a notice of appeal. 

As a preliminary matter, we note that Appellants’ brief does not comply

with our rules of appellate procedure. Appellants did not include a statement 

of the questions presented for review, a summary of their argument, or an 

argument session. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111, 2116, 2118-19. Instead, Appellants’

“brief” is actually another amended complaint setting forth the underlying 

facts, raising its original claim of negligence and adding a count of intentional 

infliction of emotional distress not raised in the lower courts.

Further, we note that Appellants failed to identify any issues for this 

Court to review on appeal and make no attempt to show that the trial court 

abused its discretion in entering its January 25, 2024 order finding the 
J-A19041-24

- 3 -

Appellants were not entitled to file an appeal nunc pro tunc or to reinstate its 

complaint before the trial court. 

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2119 requires that an 

appellant identify the issues to be reviewed by this Court and to provide 

citation to relevant legal authority with corresponding analysis. Pa.R.A.P. 

2119. Our court has emphasized that “it is an appellant's duty to present 

arguments that are sufficiently developed for our review. The brief must 

support the claims with pertinent discussion, with references to the record and 

with citations to legal authorities.” Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 

771 (Pa.Super. 2007) (internal citation omitted). “This Court will not act as 

counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant. Moreover, 

when defects in a brief impede our ability to conduct meaningful appellate 

review, we may dismiss the appeal entirely or find certain issues to be 

waived.” Id.

Appellants’ brief contains no actual challenge to the order appealed from

in this case. We decline to act as Appellants’ advocate and will not formulate 

an argument on Appellants’ behalf. Accordingly, we conclude that it is 

appropriate to dismiss this appeal in its entirety as a result of Appellants’ 

failure to comply with our Rules of Appellate Procedure which has prevented 

this Court from providing meaningful review.
J-A19041-24

- 4 -

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 09/25/2024