J-A17016-19 No. 3265 EDA 2018
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered November 5, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): No. 180800230 BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J.:
Appellant, Virginia Glover, appeals pro se from the order entered on November 5, 2018 awarding Mens, LLC back-rent, attorney's fees and possession in a landlord-tenant dispute. We dismiss the appeal.
This case proceeded to trial before the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County on November 5, 2018. The trial court ruled in Mens, LLC's favor, awarding it six months of back-rent, attorney's fees, and possession of the subject property. Appellant's timely pro se appeal followed.
On appeal, Appellant contends that she received inadequate legal representation in this matter. However, Appellant fails to raise a justiciable issue for our review, does not set forth any legal authority, case law, or cogent argument in support of her position, and fails to adhere to the briefing requirements set forth in our Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. See generally Pa.R.A.P. 2111-2119. Because the defects in Appellant's pro se appellate brief preclude meaningful review, we quash the appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 ("Briefs 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) ("Although 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.").
Even if Appellant's counsel provided her with inadequate representation, Appellant failed to assert any claims that the trial court erred in entering judgment in favor of Mens LLC. --------
Appeal dismissed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 6/27/19