Harris, M. v. Blake, J.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: July 24, 2025
• Docket: 1263 EDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S48013-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

MARK FROG HARRIS : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : J. STEVEN BLAKE, D.O. AND BLAKE : No. 1263 EDA 2024 GASTROENTEROLOGY, LLC :

Appeal from the Judgment Entered June 4, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No: 220802706

BEFORE: STABILE, J., NICHOLS, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY STABILE, J.: FILED JULY 24, 2025

Appellant, Mark Frog Harris, appeals pro se from the June 4, 2024

judgment entered in favor of Appellees, J. Steven Blake, D.O. and Blake

Gastroenterology, LLC. We quash.

In this breach of contract action, Appellant claimed that he contracted

with Appellees for liposuction surgery and that Appellees failed to perform in

accordance with the contract. The trial court conducted a non-jury trial on

October 10, 2023, and returned a verdict in favor of Appellees and mistakenly

entered judgment in favor of Appellees simultaneously with the entry of the

verdict. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on November 3, 2023. On January

29, 2024, this Court quashed the appeal, reasoning that trial court’s entry of

judgment was premature. We remanded with instructions to Appellant to file

a post-trial motion within ten days. Appellant filed a timely motion on J-S48013-24

February 7, 2024. Appellees responded, both parties briefed the matter, and

the trial court denied post-trial relief by order docketed April 29, 2024.

Though judgment was not yet entered, Appellant file a notice of appeal on

May 2, 2024, purporting to appeal from the verdict entered October 10, 2023.

On May 30, 2024, this Court entered a show cause order directing Appellant

to file a praecipe to enter judgment. Appellant complied on June 4, 2024, and

we corrected the caption to reflect that Appellant has appealed from the

judgment entered on that date.

Appellant’s pro se brief raises a host of issues regarding the contract in

dispute and the trial court’s evidentiary rulings. Unfortunately, the brief fails

to conform to many of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, and in particular is

devoid of citations to supporting legal authority as required under Pa.R.A.P.

2119(b). Failure to support an argument with pertinent legal authority results

in waiver, as the lack of a reasoned legal argument hampers our review and

it is not this Court’s duty to serve as an advocate for an appellant. Estate of

Haiko v. McGinley, 799 A.2d 155, 161 (Pa. Super. 2002). Appellant’s pro

se status does not excuse his noncompliance with the Rules of Appellate

Procedure; this Court will quash or dismiss pro se appeals that do not comply

with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Wilkins v. Marsico, 903 A.2d 1281,

1284 (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal denied, 918 A.2d 747 (Pa. 2007).

Appeal quashed.

-2- J-S48013-24

Date: 7/24/2025

-3-