Howard, D., Jr. v. First National Bank ( 2022 )

J-A05005-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
DOUGLASS EARL HOWARD, JR. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
FIRST NATIONAL BANK : No. 161 MDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered December 16, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Civil Division at No(s):
2020-CV-12015-CV
BEFORE: OLSON, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J.: FILED: FEBRUARY 7, 2022
Appellant, Douglass E. Howard, Jr., appeals pro se from the order
entered on December 16, 2020. We dismiss this appeal.
Appellant filed an appeal from the trial court’s December 16, 2020 order,
which dismissed Appellant’s complaint because the underlying action was
frivolous. See Trial Court Order, 12/16/20, at 1.
Our review of Appellant’s brief does not reveal a comprehensible
argument and Appellant does not cite to either the record or legal authority to
support the claims he raises on appeal. As this Court has long noted:
The argument portion of an appellate brief must include a
pertinent discussion of the particular point raised along with
discussion and citation of pertinent authorities. This Court will not
consider the merits of an argument which fails to cite relevant
case or statutory authority. Failure to cite relevant legal authority
constitutes waiver of the claim on appeal.
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A05005-22
In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 209 (Pa. Super. 2012), appeal denied,
69 A.3d 603 (Pa. 2013) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Here,
Appellant failed to cite any legal authority to support his woefully
underdeveloped argument. Moreover, he failed to cite to the record. These
procedural and substantive defects in Appellant’s brief completely preclude
meaningful appellate review. As such, we dismiss this appeal. See Pa.R.A.P.
2101 (“[b]riefs and reproduced records shall conform in all material respects
with the requirements of [our] rules as nearly as the circumstances of the
particular case will admit, otherwise they may be suppressed, and, if the
defects are in the brief or reproduced record of the appellant and are
substantial, the appeal or other matter may be quashed or dismissed.”); see
also Commonwealth v. Postie, 110 A.3d 1034, 1041 n.8 (Pa. Super. 2015)
(“[a]lthough this Court is willing to construe liberally materials filed by a pro
se litigant, pro se status generally confers no special benefit upon an
appellant. Accordingly, a pro se litigant must comply with the procedural rules
set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court”).
-2-
J-A05005-22
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/7/2022
-3-