ARTHUR WAKEFIELD v. DIANE M. LEGREIDE

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0333-05T30333-05T3

ARTHUR WAKEFIELD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DIANE M. LEGREIDE,

Defendant-Respondent.

_______________________________

 

Submitted: March 27, 2007 - Decided April 23, 2007

Before Judges Kestin and Lihotz.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Civil Part, Middlesex County, L-1973-04.

Arthur Wakefield, appellant pro se.

No brief was filed by any other party.

PER CURIAM

The notice of appeal states that plaintiff appeals from an order entered on August 19, 2005, which denied his motion to consolidate two matters under separate docket numbers and denied as moot his motion to schedule a trial date. Although no further order of the trial court is specified in the notice of appeal, plaintiff has attached to his arguments on the merits another trial court order, entered on August 31, 2005, dismissing the complaint with prejudice and embodying "ancillary relief," including a prohibition on plaintiff from filing any further complaints without first obtaining permission from the assignment judge of Middlesex County to do so.

We initially denied plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal in an order entered on October 25, 2005, but then granted it on reconsideration in an order entered on January 9, 2006. Having, in the earlier order, granted plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed as an indigent, we also required, in the later order, the preparation, at public expense, of the transcript of trial proceedings on August 16, 2005, which has, therefore, become part of the record on appeal.

On May 1, 2006, we granted plaintiff's motion to rely on his submissions on the motion for leave to appeal and the motion for reconsideration as his merits brief. The terse arguments contained in plaintiff's motion papers, totaling one-page in length, seem to be addressed to the contents of the attached August 31, 2005 order.

Plaintiff, however, did not satisfy the requirements of a deficiency notice from the Clerk's office dated April 10, 2006. The appeal was scheduled for plenary consideration nevertheless.

We now dismiss the appeal. The permission we gave plaintiff in our May 1, 2006 order, to rely on his motion papers as the brief on the merits, did not excuse him from discharging his responsibilities under Rule 2:6-1 regarding the preparation and submission of an appendix. Without the pleadings and other documents required by that rule, and given plaintiff's failure to remedy the other deficiencies referred to in the notice of April 10, 2006, we are deprived of background that is vital for discharging our appellate review function to evaluate the correctness and sufficiency of the trial court's order.

 
The appeal is dismissed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-0333-05T3

April 23, 2007