Muhammad, R. v. Norris, D. (judgment order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A30009-15 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 RAHEEM MUHAMMAD IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. DAVID A. NORRIS; CARL HOFFIELD; DAVID CURLEY; RAYMOND URBASH; D AND D AUTO SALVAGE YARDS; TROY HILL GARAGE; ALL FOREIGN AUTO PARTS; WEST PENN MOTOR CLUB; AAA OF PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA; AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee No. 1660 WDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment Entered August 24, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s): AR 14-000711 BEFORE: MUNDY, J., JENKINS, J., and FITZGERALD, J.* JUDGMENT ORDER BY MUNDY, J.: FILED OCTOBER 14, 2015 Appellant, Raheem Muhammad, appeals pro se from the August 24, 2014 judgment entered in favor of Appellees David A. Norris, Carl Hoffield, David Curley, Raymond Urbash, D and D Auto Salvage Yards, Troy Hill Garage, All Foreign Auto Parts, West Penn Motor Club, AAA of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Automobile Association of America, ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. the Pennsylvania J-A30009-15 Department of Transportation, and the Commonwealth. After careful review, we dismiss this appeal. Generally, appellate briefs are required to conform to the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101. “This Court may … dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to conform to the requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.” In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207, 1211 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 20 A.3d 489 (Pa. 2011). Generally, this Court will construe pro se materials liberally, but “pro se status confers no special benefit on an appellant.” Id. at 1211-1212 (citation omitted). In this case, the argument section of Appellant’s brief is five pages mostly of references to the reproduced record and bald conclusions that are all bolded, underlined, and in all capital letters. See generally Appellant’s Brief 11-15. We note that Appellant has included one block quote to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 400 with a one-sentence conclusion, but without any development or argument as to why the trial court erred in this particular case. It is axiomatic that this Court will not consider issues where the appellant has not developed the issue in any meaningful way. 1 In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 209 (Pa. Super. 2012), appeal denied, ____________________________________________ 1 Although Appellant also has a block quote to Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3(C), it is axiomatic the judicial canons do not have the force of law. Reilly v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 489 A.2d 1291, 1298 (Pa. 1985). -2- J-A30009-15 69 A.3d 603 (Pa. 2013). Furthermore, “[t]his Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.” Commonwealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327, 331 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 29 A.3d 796 (Pa. 2011). Based on the foregoing, we conclude the defects in Appellant’s brief are substantial and preclude this Court from conducting any meaningful appellate review. Accordingly, we elect to exercise our discretion pursuant to Rule 2101 and dismiss this appeal.2 Appeal dismissed. Case stricken from argument list. Application for relief denied as moot. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 10/14/2015 ____________________________________________ 2 In light of our disposition, we deny Appellant’s application for relief filed October 8, 2015 as moot. -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.
