A.M.E. v. D.R.E.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: September 19, 2024
• Docket: 607 EDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A20036-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

AHMED M. ELAGAMY : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : DOHA R. ELHALLAG : : Appellant : No. 607 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Order Entered January 31, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Division at No(s): A06-24-60110-A

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., PANELLA, P.J.E., and DUBOW, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 19, 2024

Appellant, Doha R. Elhallag (“Wife”), appeals pro se from the January

31, 2024 order entered in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas that

granted the Petition for Protection from Abuse (“PFA Petition”) that Appellee,

Ahmed M. Elagamy (“Husband”), filed against her. Upon review, we dismiss

this appeal due to the substantial defects in Wife’s brief.

A detailed recitation of the procedural and factual history is unnecessary

to our disposition. Briefly, Husband and Wife are estranged. On January 22,

2024, Husband filed a PFA petition against Wife alleging that, since January

of 2022, Wife had injured his hand, sent an email in English threatening to kill

him, have him deported, and keep their son from him, and made similar

threats on other occasions, in addition to sending him a text message in Arabic

saying, “I will keep your soul,” which he interpreted to mean, “I will kill you.”

N.T. Trial, 1/31/24, at 16. Wife also made phone calls to Husband’s J-A20036-24

workplaces, which she admitted in a text message, and went to one of his

workplaces and kicked a door.

The court issued a temporary PFA order. The parties, both represented

by counsel, proceeded to a PFA hearing on January 31, 2024. Husband

testified in accordance with the above facts. Wife also testified, and admitted

to sending the text message but denied the remaining allegations. Following

the hearing, the court entered a final PFA order against Wife, which barred

contact for 3 years and expires on January 31, 2027.

Wife filed a timely pro se appeal. Both Wife and the trial court complied

with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

In her brief, Wife asserts that she did not receive a fair hearing, she was

not served properly, Husband’s testimony was inconsistent, and the evidence

was unreliable, including messages in Arabic translated via Google Translate.

Wife’s Br. at 3-11 (unpaginated). She also filed an appendix to her brief,

which challenged the trial court’s factual findings. Appendix at 1-7. However,

the substantial defects in Wife’s brief preclude meaningful appellate review.

Appellate briefs must materially conform to the requirements set forth

in our Rules of Appellate Procedure, and we may quash or dismiss an appeal

if the defect in the brief is substantial. Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d

496, 497 (Pa. Super. 2005); Pa.R.A.P. 2101. “[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.” Commonwealth v. Lyons,

833 A.2d 245, 251–52 (Pa. Super. 2003).

-2- J-A20036-24

“The Rules of Appellate Procedure [] state unequivocally that each

question an appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of

pertinent authority.” Commonwealth v. Martz, 232 A.3d 801, 811 (Pa.

Super. 2020) (citation omitted). See also Pa.R.A.P. 2111 (listing briefing

requirements for appellate briefs) and Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (listing argument

requirements for appellate briefs). “When issues are not properly raised and

developed in briefs, when the briefs are wholly inadequate to present specific

issues for review[,] a Court will not consider the merits thereof.” Branch

Banking and Trust v. Gesiorski, 904 A.2d 939, 942-43 (Pa. Super. 2006)

(citation omitted). It is axiomatic that the argument portion of an appellate

brief must be developed with citation to the record and relevant authority.

Pa.R.A.P 2119(a)-(c); see also Commonwealth v. B.D.G., 959 A.2d 362,

371–72 (Pa. Super. 2008) (finding waiver where appellant failed to cite any

pertinent authority to support his argument). As this Court has made clear,

we “will not act as counsel[.]” Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771

(Pa. Super. 2007). “We shall not develop an argument for an appellant, nor

shall we scour the record to find evidence to support an argument[.]” Milby

v. Pote, 189 A.3d 1065, 1079 (Pa. Super. 2018).

The substantial defects in Wife’s brief preclude meaningful appellate

review. Wife fails to include a Statement of Questions Involved or a Statement

of the Case. See Pa.R.A.P. 2116; 2117. Furthermore, Wife’s argument

section is substantially underdeveloped—she fails to provide citation to any

legal authority to support her arguments and, accordingly, fails to apply the

-3- J-A20036-24

law to the facts of this case in a meaningful and coherent manner as required

by our Rules of Appellate Procedure and caselaw. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a);

B.D.G., 959 A.2d at 371–72. Accordingly, Wife’s brief fatally impedes our

review.1 We, thus, dismiss this appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Date: 9/19/2024

____________________________________________

1 Even if Wife had not waived her claims, we would affirm the trial court’s decision. The trial court properly addressed Wife’s claims and we would adopt the trial court’s reasoning as our own.

-4-