Slomnicki, J. v. City of Pittsburgh (judgment order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S28020-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOSEPH SLOMNICKI Appellant v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH, COMMANDER KATHERINE M. DEGLER, LOCATED AT ZONE 4 POLICE STATION, NORTHUMBERLAND STREET, CITY OF PITTSBURGH, MAYOR LUKE RAVENSTAHL, CITY OF PITTSBURGH, POLICE OFFICER D. CAPLAN #3696 Appellees No. 1699 WDA 2012 Appeal from the Order October 10, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s): GD 12-12419 BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., and PLATT, J.* JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J. Filed: May 15, 2013 For the following reasons, we hereby DISMISS the appeal filed by Joseph Slomnicki. Slomnicki appeals from the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County sustaining preliminary objections filed by the City of Pittsburgh, et al., and dismissing Slomnicki s complaint with prejudice. By order dated October 10, 2012, the trial court dismissed Slomnicki s complaint because, inter alia, it was insufficient under the Rules of Civil ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S28020-13 Procedure, it was not verified, it did not contain sufficient factual content to demonstrate entitlement to relief, and Pennsylvania does not recognize a private cause of action for recovery of monetary damages for violations of constitutional rights.1 Slomnicki filed this timely appeal2 on October 31, 2012. Upon review of his appellate brief, we are constrained to conclude that Slomnicki has waived all issues he may have wished to raise on appeal. Specifically, the argument section of Slomnicki s brief consists of two paragraphs in which he does nothing more than recite our standard for review of the dismissal of a complaint based upon preliminary objections as set forth in D Elia v. Folino, 933 A.2d 117, 121 (Pa. Super. 2007). Accordingly, because he has failed to develop any case-specific, fact-based legal argument whatsoever, he has waived all appellate issues. See Commonwealth v. Clayton, 816 A.2d 217 (Pa. 2002) ( [I]t is a well settled principle of appellate ____________________________________________ 1 In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, the trial court further noted that Slomnicki has a documented history of filing nearly identical lawsuits in the past, all of which have also been dismissed by the [c]ourt for similar reasons. Trial Court Opinion, 11/30/12, at 2. 2 We note for the record that proper jurisdiction for this appeal lies with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, which has jurisdiction over appeals filed from the Court of Common Pleas for civil cases involving local government. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. ยง 762(a)(4). However, Appellees have not objected to our jurisdiction pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 741. As such, and because Slomnicki s appeal is patently meritless, in the interest of judicial economy we will retain jurisdiction and dispose of Slomnicki s appeal. -2- J-S28020-13 jurisprudence that undeveloped claims are waived and unreviewable on appeal. ). Appeal dismissed. Judgment Entered Deputy Prothonotary Date: May 15, 2013 -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
