Title: Steedley v. Surdo-Galef, et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 137, 2012
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 22, 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RUSSELL STEEDLEY, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
LINDA SURDO-GALEF and 
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, 
INC., 
 
Defendants Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 137, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. N11C-09-194 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 1, 2012 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: May 22, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 22nd day of May 2012, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On March 19, 2012, the Court received the plaintiff-appellant’s 
notice of interlocutory appeal from a Superior Court order, dated December 
21, 2011.  The Superior Court’s order held that the plaintiff, Russell 
Steedley, had 60 days to file an affidavit of merit with his complaint for 
medical negligence or else his complaint would be dismissed.  The Superior 
Court then certified an interlocutory appeal to this Court by order dated 
January 17, 2012.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42(d)(i), Steedley’s 
 
 
-2-
notice of interlocutory appeal should have been filed on or before January 
20, 2012.  
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b) directing appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be 
dismissed as untimely filed.1  Appellant filed a response to the notice to 
show cause on April 2, 2012.  He asserts that he is incarcerated and 
unrepresented by counsel and that he did not know that he was required to 
file any additional documentation to pursue an appeal once the Superior 
Court issued its order certifying the interlocutory appeal.  The appellees 
have filed a response requesting that the appeal be dismissed for Steedley’s 
failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42. 
  (3) Time is a jurisdictional requirement.2  A notice of appeal, 
including a notice of interlocutory appeal, must be received by the Office of 
the Clerk of this Court within the applicable time period in order to be 
effective.3  An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply 
strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.4  
Unless the appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(i), 42(d)(i) (2012). 
2Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
 
 
-3-
appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, his appeal cannot be 
considered.5  
(4) 
In this case, there is no indication that Steedley’s failure to file 
a timely notice of interlocutory appeal is attributable to court personnel.  
Thus, the Court concludes that the within interlocutory appeal must be 
dismissed.  We note, however, that once the Superior Court enters the final 
order dismissing Steedley’s complaint below, he may then file an appeal 
from that final order with this Court. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the within interlocutory appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
Justice 
                                                 
5Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).